Ifrs15 - Bdo

IFRS IN PRACTICE 2017
IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

2 IFRS IN PRACTICE 2017 IFRS15 REVENUE FROM CONTRACTS WITH CUSTOMERS
IFRS IN PRACTICE 2017 IFRS15 REVENUE FROM CONTRACTS WITH CUSTOMERS 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 5
2. Background 8
3. Scope 9
4. The Five Step approach 11
4.1. Step One Identify the contract 11
4.2. Step Two Identify separate performance obligations in the contract 17
4.3. Step Three Determine the transaction price of the contract 25
4.4. Step Four Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations 41
4.5. Step Five Recognise revenue when each performance obligation is satisfied 46
5. Other issues 57
5.1. Contract costs 57
5.2. Changes in the transaction price after contract inception 60
5.3. Sale with a right of return 61
5.4. Warranties 63
5.5. Principal vs. agent 66
5.6. Customer options for additional goods or services 68
5.7. Renewal options 71
5.8. Customers unexercised rights 73
5.9. Non-refundable upfront fees 74
5.10. Licencing 75
5.11. Sales-based or usage-based royalties 80
5.12. Repurchase agreements 84
5.13. Consignment arrangements 86
5.14. Bill-and-hold arrangements 86
5.15. Customer acceptance 87
5.16. Treatment of onerous contracts 88
6. Presentation 89
7. Disclosures 90
8. Effective Date and Transition 92
9. Comparison of IFRS15 and Topic606 95
10. Comparison of IFRS15 and current revenue standards 99
1. INTRODUCTION
On 28May2014, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with
Customers. IFRS15 sets out a single and comprehensive framework for revenue recognition and, for many entities, the timing
and profile of revenue recognition will change. In some areas, the changes will be very significant and will require careful
planning.
IFRS15 was developed by the IASB in a joint project with the USFinancial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). As issued in
May2014, the Boards achieved their goal of reaching the same conclusions on all significant requirements for accounting for
revenue from contracts with customers. Only minor differences existed, in respect of:
Collectability threshold;
Interim disclosure requirements;
Early application and effective date;
Impairment loss reversal; and
Non-public entity requirements.
However, due to subsequent changes made by both Boards, IFRS15 and its USGAAP equivalent, Topic606, are no longer
fully converged although the differences are relatively small.
Existing IFRSguidance is set out in two relatively old standards (IAS18 Revenue and IAS11 Construction Contracts) which
are accompanied by a number of Interpretations. In common with other more recently issued IFRSs, IFRS15 includes
comprehensive application guidance and illustrative examples, together with a detailed section which sets out how theIASB
reached its decisions about the new requirements (the Basis for Conclusions). As an indication of the scale of change, the
following table compares the number of pages of guidance in IFRS15 with existing standards and interpretations:
Existing
IFRS15 IFRS IAS18 IAS11 IFRIC13 IFRIC15 IFRIC18 SIC-31
Standard/Interpretation 39 33 10 11 3 4 4 1
Application guidance 17 1 - - 1 - - -
Transition guidance 2 - - - - - - -
Amendments to other standards 26 - - - - - - -
Implementation guidance and
82 21 8 4 2 5 2 -
Illustrative examples
Basis for conclusions 175 22 - - 7 8 5 2
Total 341 77 18 15 13 17 11 3
Figure1: Comparison of the number of pages of guidance under IFRS15 with existing guidance
The new standard also introduces an overall disclosure objective together with significantly enhanced disclosure
requirements for revenue recognition. These are accompanied by an explicit statement that immaterial information does not
need to be disclosed and that the disclosure requirements should not be used as a checklist. In practice, even if the timing
and profile of revenue recognition does not change, it is possible that new and/or modified processes will be needed in order
to obtain the necessary information.
IFRS15 was originally effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1January2017 with earlier application
permitted. This has since been deferred to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1January2018, principally as a
result of changes which have been made to the new standard.
To assist implementation, the IASB and FASB jointly established a Transition Resource Group (TRG) as a public forum for
preparers, auditors and users to share implementation experience and discuss issues submitted to the TRG.
It should be noted that the TRG has been able to suggest further consideration of an issue by the two Boards (IASB and
FASB) but does not issue any guidance.
In July2015 the IASB published Exposure DraftED/2015/6 which proposed clarifications in the following areas:
a) Identifying performance obligations
b) Principal versus Agent considerations
c) Licencing
d) Practical expedients on transition.
The IASBs proposals were based around a high hurdle being applied when considering whether to amend the new Standard.
Consequently these were only when:
a) The IASB considered that the proposed amendments were essential to clarifying its intentions when IFRS15 was
developed; or
b) The benefits of retaining converged requirements were greater than any potential costs of amending the requirements.
In April2016 Clarifications to IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers were issued.
The amendments clarify the existing guidance for:

Identification of performance obligations
Performance obligations are identified on the basis of distinct goods or services. To further clarify the concept, additional
illustrative examples have been added with others being amended. The amendments are the same as the FASB has made
to its equivalent USGAAPguidance.
Principal vs. agent considerations
IFRS15 requires an entity to determine whether it is a principal or an agent based on whether it controls the underlying
goods or services before the transaction. In order to clarify the approach the application guidance in AppendixB has been
amended and additional illustrative examples have been added. The amendments are the same as the FASB has made to
its equivalent USGAAPguidance.
Licencing agreements
Revenue from a licencing agreement is either recognised over time or at a point in time. The pattern of revenue
recognition is based on whether the entity is required to undertake activities that significantly affect the functionality of
the intellectual property. The amendments include additional application guidance and examples to determine when an
entitys activities significantly affect intellectual property, together with clarification for arrangements involving sales- or
usage-based royalties.
Transitional reliefs
Completed contracts: there is no requirement to apply IFRS15 retrospectively to completed contracts at the
beginning of the earliest period presented. A completed contract is one where all of the promised goods or services
have already been transferred to the customer, which may be earlier than the timing of recognition of the related
revenue if this is for an uncertain variable amount.
Modified contracts: an entity is allowed to use hindsight when determining the effects of contract modifications on
transition.
The IASBs subsequent Clarifications to IFRS15 differ in certain respects from the amendments to Topic606 issued by the
FASB. Some differences arise from the FASB addressing US specific issues, including where guidance is already included in
existing USGAAP. The differences are the following areas:
Scope: Revenue recognition for contracts with customers that do not meet the Step 1 criteria;
Promised goods or services that are immaterial within the context of the contract;
Shipping and handling activities;
Presentation of sales taxes;
Non-cash consideration;
In-substance sales of intellectual property;
Licensing:
Determining the nature of the entitys promise in granting a licence of intellectual property;
Contractual restrictions in a licence and the identification of performance obligations;
Renewals of licences of intellectual property;
When to consider the nature of an entitys promise in granting a licence.
Completed contracts;
Date of application of the contract modifications practical expedient.
2. BACKGROUND
TheIASBs joint project with the Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB) to develop a new accounting standard for
revenue recognition dates back for over a decade. The international and the USstandard setters had noted inconsistencies
and weaknesses in each of their respective accounting standards. InIFRS, there was significant diversity in practice because
existing standards contained limited guidance for a range of significant topics, such as accounting for contracts with multiple
elements; should these be accounted for as one overall obligation, or as a series of separate (albeit related) obligations?
Under USGAAP, concepts for revenue recognition had been supplemented with a broad range of industry specific guidance,
which had resulted in economically similar transactions being accounted for differently.
Both theIASB and theFASB also noted that existing disclosure requirements were unsatisfactory, as they often resulted in
information being disclosed that was not sufficient for users of financial statements to understand the sources of revenue,
and the key judgements and estimates that had been made in its recognition. The information disclosed was also often
boilerplate and uninformative in nature.
IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers establishes a single and comprehensive framework which sets out how much
revenue is to be recognised, and when. The core principle is that a vendor should recognise revenue to depict the transfer
of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the vendor expects to be
entitled in exchange for those goods or services.
Revenue will now be recognised by a vendor when control over the goods or services is transferred to the customer. In
contrast, IAS18 Revenue based revenue recognition around an analysis of the transfer of risks and rewards; this now forms
one of a number of criteria that are assessed in determining whether control has been transferred.
The application of the core principle in IFRS15 is carried out in fivesteps:
STEP ONE STEP TWO STEP THREE STEP FOUR STEP FIVE
Recognise revenue
Allocate
Identify separate as or when each
Identify the Determine the transaction price
performance performance
contract transaction price to performance
obligations obligation is
obligations
satisfied
Figure2: Five-step approach
The firststep is to identify the contract(s) with the customer. Whatever the form, a contract creates enforceable rights and
obligations between a vendor and its customer.
After identifying the contract(s) with the customer, a vendor identifies the contract into what are termed performance
obligations. A performance obligation is a promise by a vendor to transfer goods or services to a customer. Each performance
obligation is distinct, being either a good or service from which the customer can benefit on its own (or in combination
with other readily available goods and services); two or more distinct goods and services (such as the supply of construction
material and labour) are combined if, in reality, they represent one overall obligation.
In thethird and fourthsteps, a vendor determines the transaction price of the entire contract and then allocates the
transaction price among the different performance obligations that have been identified.
In the fifth step, a vendor assesses when it satisfies each performance obligation (which may be at a point in time, or over
time) and recognises revenue. The principle is based around the point at which the customer obtains control of the good or
service.
3. SCOPE
IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers applies to all contracts with customers, except for:
Lease contracts within the scope of IAS17/IFRS16 Leases;
Insurance contracts within the scope of IFRS4 Insurance Contracts;
Financial instruments and other contractual rights and obligations within the scope of IFRS9 Financial Instruments,
IFRS10 Consolidated Financial Statements, IFRS11 Joint Arrangements, IAS27 Separate Financial Statements and
IAS28Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures.
Revenue is derived from contracts entered into by a vendor for the sale of goods or services, arising from its ordinary
activities, to a customer. Its recognition is linked to changes in a vendors assets and liabilities; this can be in the form of cash
inflows or increases in receivable balances, or decreases in a liability that represents deferred revenue. All changes in those
assets and liabilities are recognised in profit or loss, other than those relating to transactions with owners (for example,
shareholders) of the vendor if the owners enter into transactions with the vendor in their capacity as such.
The existing requirements of other IFRSs for the recognition of a gain or loss on the transfer of some non-financial assets
that are not an output of a vendors ordinary activities (such as property, plant and equipment, investment property and
intangible assets) have been amended so that they are consistent with the requirements in IFRS15.
In addition, IFRS15 does not apply to non-monetary exchanges between entities in the same line of business to facilitate
sales to customers or potential customers. An example is a contract between two oil companies that agree to exchange oil in
different locations in order to fulfil demand from their customers.
A contract may be partially within the scope of IFRS15 and partially within the scope of other IFRSs. In this situation a
vendor takes the approach summarised in the following diagram:
Do other IFRSs specify how to separate and/or initially measure Apply the requirements of IFRS15
No
one (or more) parts of the contract? to the entire contract.
Yes
Allocate the transaction price relating to parts of the contract dealt with by other IFRSs:
(i) Parts of the contract dealt with by other IFRSs: (ii) Parts of the contract not dealt with by other IFRSs:
Apply the requirements of other IFRSs to Apply the requirements of IFRS15 to

the transaction price allocated the transaction price allocated
to these parts of the contract. to these parts of the contract.
Figure3: Scope of IFRS15

This means that, if one or more other IFRSs specify how to separate and/or measure certain parts of a contract, those other
IFRSs are applied first. Those other IFRSs take precedence in accounting for the overall contract, with any residual amount of
consideration being allocated to those part(s) of the contract that fall within the scope of IFRS15.
A vendor is also required to assess whether, instead of a transaction being a sale, the counterparty to a contract shares
the risks and benefits that result from an activity or process (such as developing an asset). If so, the counterparty is not a
customer, and the transaction falls outside of the scope of IFRS15. Special care may also be needed in assessing transactions
with related parties, as their relationship with the vendor may be more complex than those with thirdparties.
TRG discussions
Credit card fees (Agenda Paper36; July2015)
The TRG discussed whether arrangements between financial institutions and credit cardholders are within the scope of the
new revenue standard. Although some income streams, such as interest charges on late payments, are not within the scope
of the new revenue standard, questions had been raised in respect of periodic or annual fees which are not dependent on the
amount of credit available or the level of use of a credit card. Ancillary services, such as access to airport lounges, and rewards
programmes, are also often included. While USGAAP includes specific guidance on credit card fees, IFRS does not have specific
guidance on thistopic.
Most of the TRG members agreed with the IASB and FASB staff (hereinafter, the staff) view that under USGAAP these types of
arrangements are outside the scope of the new revenue standard. The revenue standard would only apply if the overall nature
of these arrangements is a not a credit card lending agreement.
If the credit card arrangement is determined to be outside the scope, the related reward program is also outside the scope of
the revenue standard.
As there is no specific guidance on this topic under IFRS, some TRG members noted that preparers might have different views
under USGAAP and IFRS.
4. THE FIVE STEP APPROACH

4.1. StepOne Identify the contract
IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers is applied to contracts with customers that meet all of the following five
criteria:
The contract has been approved in writing, orally, or in accordance with other customary business practices and the
parties are committed to perform their obligations in the contract
Each partys rights regarding the goods or services to be transferred can be identified
The payment terms for the goods or services to be transferred can be identified
The contract has commercial substance (i.e.therisk, timing or amount of the vendors future cash flows is expected to
change as a result of the contract)
It is probable that the consideration for the exchange of the goods or services that the vendor is entitled to will be
collected. For the purposes of this criterion, only the customers ability and intention to pay amounts when they become
due are considered.
The last point above introduces a collectability threshold for revenue recognition, which goes beyond the contractual terms
of an arrangement with a customer. A key part of assessing whether a contract is valid is determining the extent to which
the customer has both the ability and the intention to pay the promised consideration. In contrast, IAS18 Revenue included
a similar but softer criterion which was that in order for a vendor to recognise revenue, it was necessary for it to be probable
that the economic benefits associated with the transaction would flow to the vendor.
The focus will often be on the price included in the contract between a vendor and its customer. However, it is possible that
the amount of consideration that the vendor ultimately expects to be entitled to will be less, because the vendor expects to
offer a price concession (or discount). In these cases, the assessment of the customers ability and intention to pay is made
against the lower amount.
Example
A vendor sells 1,000units of a product to a customer in return for a contractually agreed amount of CU1million. This is the
vendors firstsale to a customer in the geographic region, and the region is experiencing significant economic difficulty. The
vendor believes that economic conditions will improve in future, and that by establishing a trading relationship now with
the customer sales volumes in future will be enhanced. However, for this first contract, the vendor does not expect that the
customer will be able to pay the full amount of the contractually agreed price.
Consequently, the vendor determines that it expects to offer a 50%discount to its customer. Having considered the customers
intention and ability to pay, taking into account the current poor economic conditions, it is concluded that it is probable that
the estimated amount of CU500,000 will be collected. If the other fourcriteria set out above are met, the contract for the sale
of 1,000units in return for estimated (and therefore variable) consideration of CU500,000 is accounted for in accordance with
IFRS15.
TRG discussions
Collectability criteria (Agenda Paper13; January2015)
The TRG discussed several questions arising from the collectability criteria as its January2015 meeting. It was agreed that if
an entity considers collectability of the transaction price to be probable for a portfolio of contracts, then the entity should
recognise the transaction price as revenue when or as each of the separate performance obligations are satisfied. In addition
to determining whether collectability of the transaction price is probable at contract inception, collectability also needs to be
assessed when there is an indication of a significant change in facts and circumstances.
Example
An entity has a large volume of homogenous revenue generating customer contracts for which invoices are sent in arrears
on a monthly basis. Before accepting a customer, the entity performs procedures designed to ensure that it is probable that
the customer will pay the amounts owed. If these procedures result in the entity concluding that it is not probable that the
customer will pay the amounts owed, the entity does not accept them as a customer. Because these procedures are only
designed to determine whether collection is probable (and thus not a certainty), the entity anticipates that it will have
some customers that will not pay all amounts. While the entity collects the entire amount due from the vast majority of its
customers, on average, the entitys historical evidence (which is representative of its expectations for the future) indicates
that the entity will only collect 98%of the amounts billed.
The issue could be viewed as being whether a contract exists for 100%of the amounts invoiced, or for98%. Based on
the TRGdiscussions, 100%would be recorded as revenue, as the criterion is that it is probable that entity will collect the
consideration for each of the sales on an individual contract basis (which is the unit of account for the purposes of IFRS15).
The third step (determine the transaction price) can also be viewed as being relevant, because IFRS15.47 refers to the
amount of revenue to which an entity expects to be entitled. In this example, for each sale the entity does expect to be paid
at the point at which it enters into each transaction.
A contract with a customer might not meet all of the five criteria set out above. For those contracts, if the vendor receives
consideration from the customer it is recognised as revenue only when one of the following applies:
(i) The vendor has no remaining contractual obligations to transfer goods or services and all, or substantially all, of the
consideration has been received and is non-refundable
(ii) The contract has been terminated and the consideration received is non-refundable.
In addition, contracts with customers that do not meet the five criteria are assessed on a continuous basis to determine
whether these criteria are subsequently met. In contrast, if a contract does meet the five criteria it is only reassessed if there
is an indication of a significant change in facts or circumstances. For example, this might arise if a customers ability to pay
consideration deteriorates significantly meaning that the customer no longer has the ability to pay when amounts are due.
The result would be that revenue and a related asset balance (often a receivable) would be recorded up to the point at which
the deterioration occurred, with no revenue being recorded after that point.
Combination of contracts
Two or more contracts that are entered into at (or near) the same time, and with the same customer or related parties, are
accounted for as if they were a single contract, provided at least one of the following criteria is met:
The contracts are negotiated as a package with a single commercial objective
The amount of consideration in one contract depends on the price or performance of the other contract
The goods or services that are promised in the contracts (or some of the goods or services) represent a single
performance obligation.
BDO comment
The extension to cover contracts which are entered into with two or more separate parties that are related to each other has
been included because there may be interdependencies between or among those contracts. Related parties are as defined
in IAS24 Related Party Disclosures, which encompasses a wide range of entities and individuals, and careful analysis may be
required to ensure that all of these are considered.
Contract modifications
A contract modification is a change in the scope and/or price of a contract that is approved by the parties to that contract.
This might be referred to as change order, variation, and/or an amendment. Consistent with the provisions of IFRS15,
adjustments are only made for a contract modification when either new enforceable rights and obligations are created, or
existing ones are changed.
A contract modification is accounted for as a separate (and additional) contract only if:
The scope of the contract changes due to the addition of promised goods or services that are distinct (in accordance with
the guidance in IFRS15); and
The price of the contract increases by an amount of consideration that reflects the vendors stand-alone selling price of
the additional promised goods or services and any appropriate adjustments to that price to reflect the circumstances of
the particular contract.
When a contract modification is not accounted for as a separate (and additional) contract, the vendor identifies the goods
or services that have not yet been transferred. This will be comprised of the remaining goods or services from the original
contract, and any new goods or services arising from the contract modification. The approach which is then followed is
illustrated by the following diagram:
Mixture
Are the remaining goods and (iii) Mixed
services to be transferred under Is there only a Approach
the original contract distinct? No No
single performance obligation? will be a
mixture of
Yes Yes (i) and (ii)
(i) Termination (ii) Continuation

Replace the original contract Treat modification as part of
with a new contract. the original contract. (consider
the effects on
(consider treatment of any remaining (there will be an adjustment to revenue any unsatisfied
performance obligations and recognised to date) performance
new variable consideration) obligations)
(refer to Step#3)
Figure4: Accounting for contract modifications
Example sale of a product

A vendor enters into a contract with a customer to sell 200units of a product for CU16,000 (CU80perunit). These are to
be supplied evenly to the customer over a four month period (50unitspermonth) and control over each unit passes to the
customer on delivery.
After 150units have been delivered, the contract is modified to require the delivery of an additional 50units. At the point at
which the contract is modified, the stand-alone selling price of one unit of the product has declined to CU75.
In accordance with the requirements of IFRS15, the additional units to be delivered are distinct. Consequently, the subsequent
accounting will depend on whether the sales price for the additional units reflects the stand-alone selling price at the date of
contract modification (CU75).
ScenarioA the price of each of the additional units is CU75

The selling price of the additional units is the stand-alone price at the date of contract modification. Consequently, the
additional units are accounted for as being sold under a new and separate contract from the units to be delivered under the
terms of the original contract.
The vendor recognises revenue of CU80perunit for the remaining 50units specified in the original contract, and
CU75perunit for the 50units that are added as a result of the contract modification.
ScenarioB the price of each of the additional units is CU65, including a CU10 discount for poor service
When the contract modification for the additional 50units was being negotiated, the vendor agreed to a price reduction of
CU10for each of the additional units, to compensate the customer for poor service. Some of the first 50units that had been
delivered were faulty and the vendor had been slow in rectifying the position.
At the point of contract modification, the vendor recognises the CU10perunit discount as an immediate reduction in revenue
of CU500. This is because the discount relates to units that have already been delivered to the customer; the allocation of the
discount to the price charged for units that are to be sold in future does not mean that the discount is attributed to them.
The selling price of the additional units is therefore the stand-alone selling price (CU75) at the date of contract modification.
Consequently, the additional units are accounted for as being sold under a new and separate contract from the units to be
delivered under the terms of the original contract.
This means that, as in scenarioA, the vendor recognises revenue of CU80perunit for the remaining 50units specified in the
original contract, and CU75perunit for the 50units that are added as a result of the contract modification.
ScenarioC the price of each of the additional units is CU60

The selling price of the additional units is not the stand-alone price at the date of contract modification. Consequently, for
accounting purposes, the original contract is considered to be terminated at the point of contract modification. The remaining
units to be sold that were covered by the original contract, together with the additional units from the contract modification,
are accounted for as being sold under a new contract.
The amount of revenue recognised for each of the units is a weighted average price of CU70 . This is calculated as
((50*CU80)+(50*CU60))/100.
BDO comment
Careful consideration will be needed when determining the appropriate accounting approach in circumstances in which a
contract is modified, and the selling price reflects both compensation for poor quality goods or services that have already been
supplied to the customer, and a selling price for the additional goods or services that does not represent the stand-alone selling
price at the date of contract modification.
TRG discussions
Contract enforceability and termination clauses (Agenda Paper10; October2014)
It was noted that a contract does not exist if each party to the contract has the unilateral enforceable right to terminate a
wholly unperformed contract without compensating the other party (or parties).
A contract is wholly unperformed if:
The entity has not yet transferred any promised goods or services to the customer; and
The entity has not yet received, and is not yet entitled to receive, any consideration in exchange for promised goods or
services.
An entity only applies IFRS15 to the term of the contract in which the parties to the contract have present enforceable rights
and obligations.
The TRG considered a number of examples and generally agreed with the staff conclusions:
Example 1
An entity enters into a service contract with a customer under which the entity continues to provide services until the
contract is terminated. Each party can terminate the contract without compensating the other party for the termination
(that is, there is no termination penalty).
The duration of the contract does not extend beyond the services already provided.
Example 2
An entity enters into a contract with a customer to supply services for two years. Each party can terminate the contract at
any time after fifteen months from the start of the contract without compensating the other party for the termination.
The duration of the contract is fifteen months.
Example 3
An entity enters into a contract with a customer to provide services for two years. Either party can terminate the contract by
compensating the other party.
The duration of the contract is the specified contractual period of two years.
Example 4
An entity enters into a contract to provide services for 24months. Either party can terminate the contract by compensating
the other party. The entity has a past practice of allowing customers to terminate the contract at the end of 12months
without enforcing collection of the termination penalty.
In this case, whether the contractual period is 24months or 12months depends on whether the past practice is considered
by law (which may vary by jurisdiction) to restrict the parties enforceable rights and obligations. The entitys past practice
of allowing customers to terminate the contract at the end of month12 without enforcing collection of the termination
penalty affects the contract term in this example only if that practice changes the parties legally enforceable rights and
obligations. If that past practice does not change the parties legally enforceable rights and obligations, then the contract
term is the stated term of 24months.
4.2. StepTwo Identify separate performance obligations in the contract

Having identified the contract in step one, a vendor is then required to identify the performance obligations(s) contain in the
contract. A performance obligation is a promise to a customer to transfer:
A good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) that is distinct; or
A series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and that have the same pattern of transfer to the
customer.
A promise within a contract is a performance obligation if the contract contains either a good or a service that is distinct, or
a series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same, have the same pattern of transfer to the customer and
meet two criteria:
(i) Each distinct good or service in the series is a performance obligation satisfied over time; and
(ii) The same method would be used to measure the vendors progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance
obligation to transfer each distinct good or service in the series to the customer.
Consequently, it is necessary to identify whether a good or service is distinct. The approach to be followed is illustrated in the
following diagram:
Can the customer benefit from the good or service, either on its own,
or with other readily available resources?
No The good
(readily available resources are those that the customer possesses or
or service
is able to obtain from the entity or another third party)
is not
distinct
Yes
Is the promise to transfer a good or service separate from the other

promised goods or services in the contract? Indictors may include: (these are
then grouped
into
The entity does A good or service A good or service is bundles of goods
No and services
not provide does not significantly not highly dependent that are
a significant service modify or customise or interrelated themselves
of integrating the other with the other distinct)
the goods or services goods or services goods or services
Yes
The good or service is distinct
Figure5: Distinct goods or services

The twocriteria that need to be met in order for a good or service to be distinct are set out in more detail below:
CRITERION 1
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 (i.e. the good or service is capable of being distinct).
A customer can benefit from a good or service if the good or service can be used, consumed, or sold (other than for scrap
value), or it can be held in a way that generates economic benefits. A customer may benefit from some goods or services
on their own, while for others a customer may only be able to obtain benefits from them in conjunction with other readily
available resources.
A readily available resource is either a good or service that is sold separately (either by the vendor or another vendor), or a
resource that the customer has already obtained from the vendor (this includes goods or services that the vendor has already
transferred to the customer under the contract) or from other transactions or events.
If the vendor regularly sells a good or service separately, this indicates that a customer can benefit from it (either on its own,
or in conjunction with other resources).
CRITERION 2
The entitys promise to transfer the good or service to the customer is separately identifiable from other promises in the
contract (i.e. the good or service is distinct within the context of the contract).
In order to determine whether the vendors promise to transfer a good or service is separately identifiable from other
promised goods or services in the contract, a vendor needs to apply judgment and consider all relevant facts and
circumstances. Factors that indicate that a vendors promise to transfer an element to the customer is separately identifiable
include:
The vendor does not provide a significant service of integrating the good or service with other goods or services promised
in the contract as a bundle which represents a combined output for which the customer has contracted (i.e. the vendor is
not using the good or service as an input to produce the combined output specified by the customer)
The good or service does not significantly modify or customise another good or service promised in the contract
The good or service is not highly dependent on (or highly interrelated with) other promised goods or services. That is, if
the customer decides not to purchase the good or service it would not significantly affect the other promised goods or
services in the contract.
TRG discussions
Distinct within the context of the contract goods or services that are highly dependent on other goods or services
(Agenda Paper9; October2014)
Much of the TRG discussion focused on how to interpret the third indicator in criterion2 above.
It was discussed whether any individual fact pattern (e.g., a complex and/or customised design) could be determinative in the
evaluation of whether a good or service is distinct within the context of a contract. Factors could include a learning curve, a
customers motivation or contractual restrictions. While TRG members expressed varying levels of support for each of the
factors in isolation, they said that all facts and circumstances would need to be considered.
To clarify the application of the concept of distinct, the IASB has amended the Standard and has included additional
Illustrative Examples accompanying IFRS15. The FASB has made the same changes to USGAAP.
Identifying promised goods or services (Agenda Paper12; January2015)

The TRG discussed an implementation question about whether an entity should identify items or activities as promised goods or
services that are not identified as deliverables or components under previous revenue Standards. A specific concern was raised
about the decision not to exempt an entity from accounting for performance obligations that the entity might regard as being
perfunctory or inconsequential. Some stakeholders held a view that IFRS15 might require an entity to identify significantly
more performance obligations than would be the case under previous revenue Standards. As a consequence of this, the FASB
has amended the Standard to permit an entity not to identify promised goods or services that are immaterial in the context
of the contract. This links to guidance that was previously included in USGAAP, which was deleted when the new revenue
standard was issued. The IASB decided not to propose incorporating similar guidance into IFRS15 as its view is that this issue
relates to the application of materiality concept more generally, rather than the application of the requirements in IFRS15. In
addition, unlike under USGAAP, this issue was not previously addressed in IFRS.
Combining a good or service with other promised goods or services

If a good or service is not distinct, the vendor is required to combine that good or service with other promised goods or ser-
vices until a bundle of goods or services that is distinct can be identified. This may result, in some cases, in a vendor account-
ing for all the goods or services promised in a contract as a single performance obligation.
Example
A mobile application (app) is a computer programme designed to run on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets.
Typically, such devices are sold with several apps bundled as preinstalled software. Apps that are not preinstalled are usually
available through distribution platforms known as app stores. Mobile app providers are usually the owners of a licence to
distribute, using their own channels, specific online applications.
It is common for software providers to make mobile applications available to users on mobile devices for free. For games, users
can often then purchase virtual goods (non-physical objects) to enhance their experience of using the app (game).
The typical rights and obligations between the entity and user are:
Users can log on to the entitys server and use the application for free on the entitys server after agreeing to the terms and
conditions of the underlying license arrangement with the entity.
Users can make in-app purchases of virtual goods/services. Some of these are consumable and will be utilised immediately
or at some point after purchase and others are durable and will be used for period of time after purchase.
The entity is responsible for operating the application, but it can terminate its operation of the application at any time at its
discretion without any penalty.
The costs of operating the application are recovered by revenue from these in-app purchases.
Upgrades/future developments of the application are neither anticipated nor included in the terms and conditions of the
hosted underlying licence agreement.
Assuming the entity is the principal in the arrangement with users, given it is responsible for maintaining and operating
the application on its server, are the in-app purchases of virtual items separate performance obligations or should they be
combined into a single performance obligation and combined with the provision of access to the application?
Access to the application and the virtual goods should be accounted for as separate performance obligations. The virtual goods
will be recognised either at a point in time or over time depending on the nature of the virtual good.
The virtual goods meet the criteria to be distinct in IFRS15.27 for the following reasons:
Users can use the application without purchasing anything further and in many cases that is what users will do. The
underlying application is therefore capable of being distinct because it is used by customers on a stand-alone basis.
Users can decide not to purchase the virtual items without affecting the utility of the application. Therefore the virtual
items are not highly dependent on or highly interrelated with the application.
Once the users have access to the application, the virtual items are also capable of being distinct because the customer can
benefit from the virtual goods together with other resources that are readily available (i.e. the underlying application).
No significant integration or modification service is provided by the entity, regardless of whether or not gamers choose to
use the application with the additional virtual items.
TRG discussions and Clarifications to IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers
Identifying performance obligations (Agenda Paper22; January2015)
As noted above, an entity is required to identify performance obligations on the basis of promised goods or services that are
distinct.
The IASB has issued Clarifications to IFRS15 to amend the Illustrative Examples to clarify the application of the concept of
distinct. In order to achieve the same goal the FASB has clarified the requirements of the new revenue Standard and added
illustrations regarding the application of performance obligations.
The TRG considered issues relating to the criterion in paragraph27(b) regarding when a promised good or service is separately
identifiable (i.e. distinct within the context of a contract) and the supporting factors in paragraph29.
As a consequence of the discussions and the feedback received, the IASB has amended paragraphs27 and29, has added some
new examples and has amended some of the existing examples.
It is important to note that an entity should evaluate whether the contract is to transfer:
a) Multiple distinct goods or services; or
b) A combined item or a number of combined items that each comprise a distinct bundle of goods or services promised in the
contract.
Therefore, an entity should consider the level of integration, interrelation or interdependence among promises to transfer
goods or services in order to assess whether the promise to transfer a good or service is separately identifiable from other
promises in the contract.
The TRGs discussions also highlighted that some stakeholders may be applying the factors supporting paragraph27(b) as a
series of criteria (i.e. all of the factors need to be met to conclude that a promise is separately identifiable). It was noted that the
Boards did not intend the guidance to be read as a series of criteria.
Questions were also raised about the effect of contractual restrictions on the identification of performance obligations. In its
Clarifications to the Standard, the IASB has added an example to illustrate that an entity should focus on the characteristics of
the goods or services themselves instead of the way in which the customer might use those goods or services.
The FASB has amended Topic606 to expand the articulation of the separately identifiable principle and to reframe the existing
factors in the standard.
TRG discussions
Series of distinct goods or services (Agenda Paper27; March2015)
Unlike current revenue guidance, the new revenue standard includes the concept of a series of distinct goods or services
that are substantially the same and have the same pattern of transfer (the series provision). This concept was introduced to
promote simplicity and consistency in application.
The staff noted that an entity may determine that goods and services constitute a single performance obligation if (1)they are
bundled together because they are not distinct or (2)they are distinct but meet the criteria that require the entity to account
for them as a series (and thus as a single performance obligation). The staff further noted that a single performance obligation
that comprises a series of distinct goods or services rather than a bundle of goods or services that are not distinct affects
(1)how variable consideration is allocated, (2)whether contract modifications are accounted for on a cumulative catch-up or
prospective basis, and (3)how changes in the transaction price are treated. Because of the potential implications associated
with whether goods or services are determined to be a series, stakeholders raised questions about:
a) Whether goods must be delivered (or services must be performed) consecutively for an entity to apply the series provision:
the staff indicated that an entity should look to the series provision criteria in IFRS15.23 to determine whether the goods
or services are a series of distinct goods or services for which the entity is not explicitly required to identify a consecutive
pattern of performance. Further, while the term consecutively is used in the new revenue standards basis for conclusions,
the staff noted that they do not think whether or not the pattern of performance is consecutive is determinative [of]
whether the series provision applies. That is, goods or services do not need to be transferred consecutively to qualify as a
series of distinct goods or services under the new revenue standard.
b) Whether the accounting result for the series of distinct goods or services as a single performance obligation needs to be
the same as if each underlying good or service were accounted for as a separate performance obligation: the staff noted
that they do not believe that the accounting result needs to be substantially the same. Further, the staff stated that such
a requirement would almost certainly make it more difficult for entities to meet the requirement, and since the series
provision is not optional, it likely would require entities to undertake a with and without type analysis in a large number of
circumstances to prove whether the series provision applies or not.
TRG members generally agreed with the staff conclusions. However, TRG members discussed an apparent contradiction that
while the series literature was meant to simplify accounting (akin to a practical expedient), it is mandatory if an entity meets
the criteria. Treating performance obligations as a series may result in different accounting. As a result, certain TRG members
questioned whether the guidance should be mandatory or whether it may be better to have a practical expedient. While
the FASB did not commit to amending the standard for a practical expedient, it noted that it was open to gathering more
information on the issue.
During the TRG discussions it was noted that to assess whether the series guidance is applicable, judgement has to be applied
in order to identify the promise to the customer. Some TRG members considered that the series guidance should be optional in
order to avoid unintended complexities.
The scope of contracts with customers

Goods or services that are to be transferred to a customer are normally specified in a contract. However, a contract may
also include promises that are implied by a vendors customary business practices, published policies, or specific statements
if those promises create a valid expectation of the customer that the vendor will transfer a good or service to the customer.
This links to IFRS15 extending the definition of a contract to include those which are written, oral, or implied by a vendors
customary business practices (provided in all cases that the arrangements are enforceable).
Consequently, the performance obligations identified in a contract with a customer may not be limited to the goods or
services that are explicitly promised in that contract.
Performance obligations do not include activities that a vendor must perform in order to fulfil a contract, unless the vendor
transfers a good or service to the customer as those activities occur. For example, a service provider may need to perform
various administrative tasks to set up a contract. The performance of those tasks does not transfer a service to the customer
as the tasks are performed; therefore these setup activities are not performance obligations of the contract.
Example determining whether goods or services are distinct

Construction contract goods and services are not distinct
A building contractor (the vendor) enters into a contract to build a new office block for a customer. The vendor is responsible
for the entire project, including procuring the construction materials, project management and associated services. The project
involves site clearance, foundations, construction, piping and wiring, equipment installation and finishing.
Although the goods or services to be supplied are capable of being distinct (because the customer could, for example, benefit
from them on their own by using, consuming or selling the goods or services, and could purchase them from other suppliers),
they are not distinct in the context of the vendors contract with its customer. This is because the vendor provides a significant
service of integrating all of the inputs into the combined output (the new office block) which it has contracted to deliver to its
customer.
Software scenario A
A vendor enters into a contract with a customer to supply a licence for a standard off the shelf software package, install the
software, and to provide unspecified software updates and technical support for a period of two years. The vendor sells the
licence and technical support separately, and the installation service is routinely provided by a number of other unrelated
vendors. The software will remain functional without the software updates and technical support.
The software is delivered separately from the other goods or services, can be installed by a different third party vendor,
and remains functional without the software updates and technical support. Therefore, it is concluded that the customer
can benefit from each of the goods or services either on their own or together with other goods or services that are readily
available. In addition, each of the promises to transfer goods or services is separately identifiable; because the installation
services does not significantly modify or customise the software, the installation and software are separate outputs promised
by the vendor, and not one overall combined output.
The following distinct goods or services are identified:
Software licence
Installation service
Software updates
Technical support.
Software scenario B
The vendors contract with its customer is the same as in scenarioA, except that as part of the installation service the software
is to be substantially customised in order to add significant new functionality to enable the software to interface with other
software already being used by the customer. The customised installation service can be provided by a number of unrelated
vendors.
In this case, although the installation service could be provided by other entities, the analysis required by IFRS15 indicates
that within the context of its contract with the customer, the promise to transfer the licence is not separately identifiable
from the customised installation service. In contrast and as before, the software updates and technical updates are separately
identifiable.
The following distinct goods or services are identified:
Software licence and customised installation service
Software updates
Technical support.
Software scenario C
The vendors contract with its customer is the same as in scenarioB, except that:
The vendor is the only supplier that is capable of carrying out the customised installation service
The software updates and technical support are essential to ensure that the software continues to operate satisfactorily,
and the customers employees continue to be able to operate the related IT systems. No other entity is capable of providing
the software updates or the technical support.
In this case, the analysis required by IFRS15 indicates that in the context of its contract with the customer, the promise is to
transfer a combined service. This combined service is identified as the single distinct good or service.
BDO comment
The identification of each of the distinct goods or services in the scenarios above may require a detailed analysis of contractual
terms, and linkage to the extent to which IFRS15 requires either that each of the components is identified as distinct goods or
services, or is combined with one or more other components into an overall distinct good or service.
Each distinct good or service will then be analysed separately to determine the amount of revenue to be allocated, and the
timing of recognition. In practice, the approach required by IFRS15 may bring substantial changes to the profile and timing of
revenue recognition in comparison with current IFRSs.
4.3. StepThree Determine the transaction price of the contract

The transaction price is the amount of consideration that a vendor expects to be entitled to in exchange for the goods
or services. This will often be the amount specified in the contract. However, the vendor is also required to consider its
customary business practices and, if these indicate that a lower amount will be accepted then this is the expected amount of
consideration.
Although a number of estimates about the future may need to be made when determining the transaction price, these are
based on the goods and services to be transferred in accordance with the existing contract. They do not take into account
expectations about whether the contract will be cancelled, renewed or modified.
The vendor also needs to consider effects of the following:
Variable consideration
Constraining estimates of variable consideration
The existence of a significant financing component in the contract
Non-cash consideration
Consideration payable to a customer.
Variable consideration
Instead of the amount of consideration specified in a contract being fixed, the amount receivable by a vendor may be
variable. In other cases, the consideration may be a combination of fixed and variable amounts.
Variable consideration can arise for a wide range of reasons, including discounts, rebates, refunds, credits, price concessions,
incentives, performance bonuses, penalties or other similar items. The principle is that if there is any potential variation in the
amount that a vendor will receive in return for its performance, then the related provisions in IFRS15 will apply.
However, the transaction price is not adjusted for the effects of a customers credit risk. In some cases, such as when a
discount is offered between the date of supply of goods or services and the payment date, it may be difficult to determine
whether a vendor has offered a price concession, or has chosen to accept the risk of the customer defaulting on the
contractually agreed amount of consideration. In the development of IFRS15, it was noted that this judgment already exists
in application of current IFRSs and it was decided not to include detailed requirements in IFRS15 for making the distinction
between a price concession and impairment losses.
As with the identification of contractual terms themselves, it is necessary to look more widely than the contract between
a vendor and its customer. Variability in the amount of consideration receivable may arise if the customer has a valid
expectation arising from a vendors customary business practices, published policies or specific statements that the vendor
will accept an amount of consideration that is less than the price stated in the contract. In addition, it is necessary to
consider whether there are any other facts and circumstances that suggest that the vendor has the intention of offering a
price concession to its customer. For example, a manufacturer of retail goods might expect to offer a retailer a discount (or
additional discount) from that specified in a contract for goods, in order to enable the retailer to sell the goods to its own
customers at a discount and therefore to increase sales volumes.
When the consideration promised in a contract with a customer includes a variable amount, a vendor estimates the
amount of consideration to which it is entitled to in exchange for the transfer of the promised goods or services. There
are twopossible methods which can be used, which are required to be applied consistently throughout the term of each
contract:
Expected value method
The sum of probability weighted amounts in a range of possible outcomes. This may be an appropriate approach if the
vendor has a large number of contracts which have similar characteristics.
Most likely amount
The most likely outcome from the contract. This may be an appropriate approach if a contract has two possible
outcomes, such as a performance bonus which will or will not be received.
The approach which is chosen is not intended to be a free choice, with the approach chosen for each contract being the one
which is expected to provide a better prediction of the amount of consideration to which a vendor expects to be entitled.
Example
Variable consideration expected value method
On 1January20X4, a vendor enters into a contract with a customer to build an item of specialised equipment, for delivery on
31March20X4. The amount of consideration specified in the contract is CU2million, but that amount will be increased or
decreased by CU10,000foreachday that the actual delivery date is either before or after 31March20X4.
In determining the transaction price, the vendor considers the approach that will better predict the amount of consideration
that it will ultimately be entitled to, and determines that the expected value method is the appropriate approach. This is
because there is a range of possible outcomes.
Variable consideration most likely amount

A vendor enters into a contract with a customer to construct a building for CU1million. The terms of the contract include a
penalty of CU100,000 if the building has not been completed by a specified date.
In determining the transaction price, the vendor considers the approach that will better predict the amount of consideration
that it will ultimately be entitled to, and determines that the most likely amount method is the appropriate approach. This is
because there are only two possible outcomes; either the penalty will be applied or it will not.
The estimated amount of variable consideration is updated at each reporting date to reflect the position at that date, and
any changes in circumstances since the last reporting date.
Constraining estimates of variable consideration

Estimates introduce a degree of uncertainty into the amount of revenue that a vendor expects to receive. In order to avoid
overly optimistic estimates being included in the calculation (and related revenue recognised), followed by a subsequent
downward adjustment to actual amounts receivable (together with a reversal of previously recognised revenue), a constraint
on the amount of variable revenue that can be recognised has been introduced.
The effect of the constraint (or restriction) is that the estimated transaction price can only include an amount of variable
consideration if it is highly probable that there will not be a subsequent significant reversal in the amount of revenue
recognised at the point at which uncertainty over the amount of variable consideration is resolved. As noted above, the
position may change at each reporting date as more information becomes available and there is greater certainty about the
expected amount of consideration.
The use of judgment and consideration of all facts and circumstances is required when assessing the potential for such a
reversal and, includes the likelihood of a change in the estimate of variable consideration and the amount of the possible
revenue reversal. Factors that indicate a significant revenue reversal may result from including an estimate of variable
consideration in the transaction price include:
The consideration is highly susceptible to factors outside the vendors influence, including:
Volatility in a market
The judgement or actions of third parties (e.g. when the amount of variable consideration varies based on the
customers subsequent sales of a good or service)
Weather conditions
A high risk of obsolescence of the promised good or service.
Where uncertainty regarding the amount of variable consideration is not expected to be resolved for a long period of time
The vendors experience (or other evidence) with similar types of contracts is limited or it has limited predictive value
The vendor has a practice of either offering a broad range of price concessions or changing the payment terms and
conditions of similar contracts in similar circumstances
The contract has a large number and broad range of possible variable consideration amounts.
Example
The example, and two scenarios, set out below illustrate the interaction between variable consideration and constraining
estimates.
On 1January20X4, a vendor sells 1,000identical goods to a distributor, which sells them to its own customers. The vendors
selling price is CU100perunit, and payment is due from the distributor to the vendor when the distributor sells each of the
goods to its own customers. Typically, those onward sales take place 90days after the goods have been obtained by the
distributor. Control of the goods transfers to the distributor on 1January20X4.
The vendor expects that it will subsequently grant a price concession (a discount), in order that the distributor can offer its own
customers a discount and increase sales volumes. Consequently, the consideration in the contract is variable.
Scenario1 the vendors estimate of variable consideration is not constrained

The vendor has substantial past experience of selling the goods and, historically, has granted a subsequent price concession
of approximately 20% of the original sales price. Current market conditions indicate that a similar reduction in price will be
applied to the contract entered into on 1January20X4.
The vendor considers the approach which will better predict the amount of consideration to which it will be entitled, and
concludes that the expected value method should be used. Under this method, the estimated transaction price is CU80,000
(CU80x1,000units).
In addition, the vendor considers the requirements for constraining the estimate of variable consideration. This is in order to
determine whether the transaction price can be the estimated amount of CU80,000. In this scenario, the vendor determines
that it has significant previous experience with the particular good and that current market information supports the estimate.
In addition, despite there being some uncertainty (because the vendor will only receive payment when the distributor sells the
goods to its own customers), this will be resolved in a relatively short time period.
Consequently, the vendor recognises revenue of CU80,000 on 1January20X4, the date on which control of the goods passes
to the distributor.
Scenario2 the vendors estimate of variable consideration is constrained

Although the vendor has experience of selling similar goods, these goods (including the goods being sold in this transaction)
have a high risk of obsolescence and the ultimate pricing is very volatile. Historically, the vendor has offered subsequent price
concessions of20-60% from the sales price for similar goods, and current market information indicates that a range of15-50%
might apply to the current transaction.
The vendor considers the approach which will better predict the amount of consideration to which it will be entitled, and
concludes that the expected value method should be used. Under this method, it is estimated that a 40%price concession will
apply, meaning that the estimated transaction price is CU60,000 (CU60x1,000units).
In addition, the vendor considers the requirements for constraining the estimate of variable consideration. This is in order to
determine whether the transaction price can be the estimated amount of CU60,000. In this scenario, the vendor determines
that the ultimate amount of consideration is highly variable and susceptible to factors outside its control, and that there is a
wide range of possible price concessions that will need to be offered to the distributor. Consequently, the vendor cannot use its
estimate of CU60,000 because it is unable to conclude that it is highly probable that there will not be a significant reversal in
the cumulative amount of revenue that has been recognised.
Although historic information shows that price concessions of20-60% have been given in the past, current market information
indicates that a price concession of15-50% will be needed for the current transaction. The vendor has carried out an analysis
of past prices and can demonstrate that they were consistent with the current market information that was available at that
time. Consequently, it is concluded that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the cumulative amount of revenue
recognised will not occur if a transaction price of CU50,000 is used.
Consequently, the vendor recognises revenue of CU50,000 on 1January20X4, and reassesses its estimates of the transaction
price at each subsequent reporting date until the uncertainty has been resolved.
BDO comment
In scenario2 above, although the uncertainties resulted in a restriction over the amount of revenue that was recognised when
the goods were supplied to the distributor, there was still sufficient evidence to support the immediate recognition of a portion
of the estimated transaction price. For those entities in the early stages of their operations, in particular those operating in
relatively new sectors, it is possible that the constraint over estimates of variable consideration will result in no revenue being
recognised on the date on which control over goods passes to a customer, with recognition being postponed until a later date.
The position would then be reassessed at each reporting date, with a corresponding amount of revenue being recognised as
appropriate.
In addition, there are specific requirements for revenue relating to sales- or usage-based royalties that are receivable in return
for a licence of intellectual property. In those cases, revenue is recognised when (or as) the later of the following events takes
place:
The subsequent sale or usage occurs
The performance obligation to which some or all of the sale- or usage-based royalty has been allocated has been satisfied
(in whole or in part).
The requirement to assess variable consideration in this way might lead to a change in the timing of revenue recognition for
some transactions.
TRG discussions
Variable consideration and constraining estimate constraint at contract or at performance obligation level?
(AgendaPaper14; January2015)
As noted above, the new revenue standard requires entities to perform a qualitative assessment that takes into account both
the likelihood and the magnitude of a potential revenue reversal and provides factors that could indicate that an estimate of
variable consideration is subject to significant reversal (e.g., susceptibility to factors outside the entitys influence, a long period
before the uncertainty is resolved, limited experience with similar types of contracts, practices of providing concessions, or a
broad range of possible consideration amounts).
Questions have arisen about whether to apply the variable consideration and constraint guidance at contract level or at
performance obligation level when variable consideration is not allocated proportionately to all performance obligations in
a contract. For example, if one performance obligation is fixed (e.g., sale of equipment) and another performance obligation
is variable (e.g., variable performance based fee), an entity must assess the potential for a significant reversal of revenue for
the variable consideration. Many stakeholders believe that it is unclear whether an entity should apply the constraint at the
contract level (i.e., total transaction price for the contract) or at the performance obligation level (i.e., transaction price specific
to the variable consideration).
TRG members generally agreed with the staff view that the constraint on variable consideration should be applied at the
contract level because the unit of account for determining the transaction price (Step3 of the model) is the contract, not the
Portfolio practical expedient and application of variable consideration constraint (Agenda Paper38; July2015)
The TRG discussed the application of the optional practical expedient that allows entities to apply the guidance to a portfolio
of contracts with similar characteristics instead of to individual contracts. TRG members agreed with the staff view that
estimating the transaction price using the evidence obtained from other similar contracts (portfolio of data) is not the same as
applying the portfolio practical expedient.
The TRG also discussed the application of the variable consideration constraint, which limits revenue recognition to the
amount for which is highly probable (probable under USGAAP) that there will not be a significant reversal of revenue
previously recognised when the uncertainty over the amount of revenue is resolved. TRG members discussed whether the new
revenue standard requires applying the constraint to a portfolio of contracts when a portfolio of data was used to estimate
variable consideration or whether the constraint can be applied at an individual contract level.
BDO comment
Constraining estimates of variable consideration interaction between IAS2 Inventories and IFRS15
IFRS15 requires contract costs within the scope of other standards to be accounted for under those Standards (IAS2,
IAS16Property, Plant and Equipment and IAS38 Intangible Assets).
The derecognition guidance in IAS16 and IAS38 is consistent with the principles in IFRS15 for the transfer of control and
measuring the transaction price. Nevertheless, there were no amendments made to the derecognition guidance in IAS2 when
IFRS15 was issued. IAS2.34 requires that the carrying amount of those inventories shall be recognised as an expense in the
period in which the related revenue is recognised.
IFRS15 requires an entity to recognise revenue when or as it satisfies a performance obligation by transferring control of a good
or service. The transaction price (and therefore revenue) may be constrained if it is variable. Consequently, the carrying amount
of inventory could be recognised as an expense even if the amount of revenue recognised at the same time is very low, or even
zero.
Example
EntityA sells a product to CustomerB and control of the product transfers to CustomerB upon shipment. However, the
transaction price is dependent on certain targets being met and as a result the price can vary from nil to CU100. EntityA
has concluded that no revenue can be recognised upon control transfer due to the application of the variable consideration
constraint in IFRS15.56.
When should costs associated with inventories be recognised when the recognition of revenue is constrained?
EntityA should recognise the costs of the product sold as an expense when control transfers. Upon shipment, EntityA no
longer controls the asset nor is the asset held for sale. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of an asset in the Framework
or the description of inventory in IAS2.8. This conclusion also reflects the fact that the variable consideration constraint
is focused on measurement. In this example, the entity is recognising revenue when it satisfies a performance obligation
by transferring control of a good to a customer, but the application of the variable consideration constraint results in that
revenue being measured at nil.
Refund liabilities
Some contracts contain provisions which entitle the customer to return a good and receive one (or a combination) of the
following:
A full or partial refund of any consideration which has been paid
A credit that can be applied against other amounts owed, or which will be owed in future, to the vendor
Another product in exchange.
For those items which are expected to be returned, the vendor does not recognise revenue. Instead, the vendor recognises a
refund liability together with an asset representing item(s) expected to be returned. If the realisable value of the item to be
returned (including any adjustment for expected costs of recovering the item and any potential decrease in value) is expected
to be less than the cost of the related inventory, an adjustment is made to cost of sales (Seesection5.3below).
Any refund liability is reassessed and updated at each reporting date.
The existence of a significant financing component in the contract

The timing of payments specified in a contract may be different from the timing of recognition of the related revenue (and,
consequently, the timing of transfer of control of the related goods or services to the customer). If the timing of payments
specified in the contract provides the customer or the vendor with a significant benefit of financing the transfer of goods or
services, the transaction price is adjusted to reflect this financing component of the contract.
Again, it is necessary to look more widely than the documented contractual terms. A significant financing component may
exist regardless of whether a financing component is explicitly stated in the contract or implied by the payment terms agreed
to by the parties to the contract.
BDO comment
This new requirement may bring a significant change in practice for some entities. Under existing guidance, consideration has
typically not been given to whether a schedule of payments in advance from a customer gives rise to a financing arrangement.
As a practical expedient, adjustments for the effects of a significant financing component are not required if the vendor
expects at contract inception that the period between the point at which the vendor recognises revenue for the transfer of
the goods or services, and the date of payment from the customer, will be one year or less.
The new guidance brings a significant change in practice, because although some entities have previously adjusted for a
financing component when payment is received after the supply of goods or services, adjustments have not typically been
made by a vendor when payment is received in advance. In addition, for those arrangements where customers pay in arrears,
there may be a change in practice. For example, in high interest rate environments when the financing component is material
but relates to a period of less than one year, some vendors currently account for the financing effect; this will no longer be
required under IFRS15.
The objective of including adjustments for significant financing components to require revenue to be recognised at the
amount that would have been paid if the customer had paid for the goods or services at the point at which they are
supplied (that is, when control transfers to the customer). This is because the result of excluding the effects of, for example,
a substantial payments in advance from a customer, could result in two economically similar transactions giving rise to
substantially different amounts of revenue.
For example, a vendor may require a customer to pay in advance for a long-term construction contract because the vendor
requires funds in order to obtain materials to carry out the contract. In the absence of such an advance payment, the vendor
would typically need to borrow the funds from a bank (or other financial institution). If the vendor obtained financing from
the bank, the vendor would need to pay finance charges and would be likely to recharge those costs to the customer by way
of a higher transaction price. However, the fair value of goods and services transferred to the customer would be the same.
It is only the party providing the financing to the vendor that changes. Consequently, the vendors revenue should not vary
depending on whether the vendor receives financing from the customer or from a third party.
Factors to consider in assessing whether a contract contains a significant financing component include:
The difference, if any, between the amount of consideration and the cash selling price of the goods or services
The combined effect of:
The expected length of time between the point at which the vendor transfers the goods or services to the customer,
and the point at which the customer pays for those goods or services; and
The prevailing interest rates in the relevant market.
When the existence of a significant financing component is identified, the applicable interest rate will not always be the rate
which is implied by the contractual terms for the sales transaction. In addition to considering any difference between the
amount of consideration and the cash selling price of the goods or services, the interest rate that would apply to a particular
borrowing arrangement needs to be considered.
Example
A vendor (a construction company) enters into a contract with a customer to supply a new building. Control over the
completed building will pass to the customer in two years time (the vendors performance obligation will be satisfied at a
point in time). The contract contains two payment options. Either the customer can pay CU5million in two years time when it
obtains control of the building, or the customer can pay CU4million on inception of the contract.
The customer decides to pay CU4million on inception.
The vendor concludes that because of the significant period of time between the date of payment by the customer and the
transfer of the asset (the completed building) to the customer, together with the effect of prevailing market rates of interest,
that there is a significant financing component.
The interest rate implicit in the transaction is11.8%. However, because the vendor is effectively borrowing from its customer,
the vendor is also required to consider its own incremental borrowing rate which is determined to be6%.
The accounting entries required are as follows:

Contract inception:
CU000 CU000
Cash 4,000
Contract liability 4,000
Recognition of a contract liability for the payment in advance
Over the two year construction period:

Interest expense 494
Contract liability 494
Accretion of the contract liability at a rate of 6%
At the date of transfer of the asset (the building) to the customer:

Contract liability 4,494
Revenue 4,494
BDO comment
For the purposes of identifying whether there is a significant financing component, the comparison made is between the
timing of payment and the timing of transfer (of control) of the related goods or services. For those entities that provide goods
or services (such as those in the construction sector) where revenue is not recognised until a point in time (on transfer of the
completed item to the customer), an adjustment for financing may be required even if construction services are being carried
out over a period of time.
When a significant financing component is recognised, consideration may be required of whether the interest income or
expense is required to be capitalised by IAS23 Borrowing Costs.
In some cases, although there may be a difference between the timing of the goods or services and payment, this is not
regarded as giving rise to a significant financing component. This is the case in any of the following circumstances:
A customer has paid in advance, and is able to call off the related goods or services at any point (such as a prepaid phone
card)
A substantial amount of consideration payable by the customer is variable, and the amount or timing of that
consideration will be determined by future events that are not substantially within the control of either the vendor or the
customer (such as a sales-based royalty)
The timing of payment in comparison with the timing of supply of goods or services is for a reason other than financing
(such as to provide the customer with protection that the vendor has or will adequately complete its obligations such as
completion of post completion remedial work on a building).
The discount rate used is the rate that would apply to a separate financing transaction between the vendor and the customer
at contract inception. It needs to reflect the credit characteristics of the party receiving financing, as well as any collateral or
security provided by that party (which might include assets transferred in the contract). The discount rate may be capable
of being determined by identifying the rate that discounts the nominal amount of consideration to the cash selling price of
the good or service. However, the discount rate will not necessarily be the same as the implied rate that would be derived by
using the timing of the amount(s) payable by the customer and the timing of the transfer of the related goods or services to
the customer. For example, a lower than market interest rate might be granted as a sales incentive which would not reflect
the creditworthiness of the customer.
After contract inception, the discount rate is not updated for changes in interest rates or other circumstances (including a
change in the customers credit risk).
The effects of a financing component are presented separately from revenue in the statement of comprehensive income.
Interest revenue or interest expense is only recognised by a vendor to the extent that a related contract asset/receivable or
contract liability (such as deferred revenue) is recognised.
TRG discussions
Financing component (Agenda Papers20 and30; January and March2015)
The TRG discussed a number of questions related to whether a contract includes a significant financing component.
Members agreed that there is no presumption in the standard that a significant financing component exists or does not exist
when there is a difference in timing between when goods and services are transferred and when the promised consideration
is paid. An entity will need to apply judgment to determine whether the payment terms are providing financing or are for
another reason. Many members noted that it will require significant judgment in some circumstances to determine whether a
transaction does, or does not, include a significant financing component.
It was agreed that the difference, if any, between the amount of promised consideration and the cash selling price is only
oneindicator, not a presumption, in determining whether a significant financing component exists. Entities would consider
the cash selling price as compared to the promised consideration in making the evaluation based on the overall facts and
circumstances of the arrangement.
TRG members agreed that the standard does not preclude accounting for financing components that are not significant in the
context of the contract.
It was also noted that it may not always be clear if cash collected relates to a specific performance obligation. Therefore
judgment will need to be applied to determine if the practical expedient can be applied in scenarios in which there is a single
payment stream for multiple performance obligations.
It was acknowledged that calculating the adjustment of revenue in arrangements that contain a significant financing
component and determining how to apply the significant financing component guidance when there are multiple performance
obligations may be complex in some scenarios. However, it was agreed that the standard provides a framework to deal with
those issues. In calculating the impact of a significant financing component, the new revenue standard includes guidance on
selecting a discount rate and other USGAAP and IFRS standards provide guidance on subsequent accounting.
It was also agreed that it may be appropriate in some circumstances to attribute a significant financing component to oneor
more, but not all, of the performance obligations in the contract. It was noted that, practically, this might be in a manner
analogous to the guidance on allocating variable consideration or allocating a discount.
Non-cash consideration
In some cases, a customer might pay for goods or services in the form of non-cash assets. For example, a customer (in
particular one which is listed on a public market) might issue shares to the vendor.
When determining the transaction price, the starting point is that the vendor should measure the non-cash consideration
at its fair value. If it is not possible to measure the fair value of the non-cash consideration, then the vendor is required to
estimate this by using the stand-alone selling prices of the goods or services subject to the contract.
A customer might contribute goods or services to a vendor (for example, a customer for a construction contract might
contribute materials, equipment or labour). In those circumstances, the vendor is required to assess whether it obtains
control of the contributed goods or services. If so, they are accounted for as non-cash consideration.
TRG discussions
Measurement of non-cash consideration (Agenda Paper15; January2015)
Rather than being fixed, the fair value of non-cash consideration can be variable and might change due to the form of the
non-cash consideration or due to other reasons. The question which follows is when the non-cash consideration should be
measured. Several TRG members expressed the view that non-cash consideration should be measured at the earlier of (1)when
the non-cash consideration is received (or is receivable) or (2)when the related performance obligation is satisfied; however,
they noted that this interpretation may be difficult to apply, especially for determining the intervals for assessment when
performance in a contract occurs over time. Other TRG members suggested support for another view in the agenda paper
(measurement at contract inception). In addition, many TRG members noted that they can understand how measurement at
either contract inception or when the non-cash consideration is received could be viewed as meeting the requirements of the
standard and that the boards should therefore clarify the guidance for practicality and to reduce potential diversity in practice.
TRG members also discussed how the constraint on variable consideration could apply to transactions in which the fair value
of non-cash consideration might vary due to both the form of the consideration and for reasons other than the form of the
consideration. Two views were discussed:
a) The constraint applies to variability resulting from both the form of the consideration and for reasons other than the form
b) The constraint applies only to variability resulting from reasons other than the form of consideration.
The FASB decided to amend the Standard to require non-cash consideration to be measured at its fair value at contract
inception. It has also specified that the constraint on variable consideration applies only to variability in the fair value of the
non-cash consideration that arises for reasons other than the form of the consideration. The IASB decided not to make any
amendments to IFRS15 and acknowledges that it is possible that diversity between IFRS and USGAAP could arise in practice.
Consideration payable to a customer

Consideration payable to a customer includes cash amounts that a vendor pays, or expects to pay, to a customer (or to other
parties that purchase the vendors goods or services from the customer), credits or other items such as coupons or vouchers
that can be applied against amounts owed to the vendor. Alternatively, the payment may be part or all of an amount payable
to the customer in return for the supply of goods or services.
Consideration payable to a customer is accounted for as a reduction of the transaction price (and hence, a reduction of
revenue), unless the payment to the customer is in exchange for a distinct good or service that the customer transfers to the
vendor.
A vendor might sell goods or services to a customer and at the same time purchases goods or services from the same
customer. If the amount of consideration payable to the customer exceeds the fair value of a distinct good or service that the
vendor receives in exchange, the difference is accounted for as a reduction in the vendors sales transaction price.
If a vendor cannot reasonably estimate the fair value of a good or service received from the customer, then the full amount
of the consideration payable to the customer is deducted from the vendors own transaction price (and hence revenue).
When the consideration payable to a customer is treated as a reduction of the transaction price the reduction of revenue is
recognised when (or as) the later of either of the following occurs:
The vendor recognises revenue for the transfer of the related goods or services to the customer
The vendor pays, or promises to pay, the consideration, even if the payment is conditional on a future event. Such a
promise may be implied by the vendors customary business practices.
A key point is that any amount paid by a vendor to its customer will be accounted for as a reduction in revenue, unless that
payment is in return for a distinct good or service.
Example
A vendor that manufactures retails goods enters into a contract to sell goods to a customer (a large supermarket group) for a
period of oneyear. The customer is required to purchase at least CU20million of goods during the year.
The contract requires the customer to make changes to the shelving and display cabinets at the stores from which the
retail goods will be sold. On the date on which the contract is entered into, the vendor makes a non-refundable payment of
CU2million to the customer to compensate for the related costs.
The payment by the vendor to its customer does not result in it obtaining any distinct good or service. This is because, although
the shelving and display cabinets will be used by the customer to sell the retail goods, the vendor does not obtain control of any
rights to those shelves or display cabinets.
Consequently, the CU2million payment is accounted for as a 10%reduction in the transaction price when the vendor
recognises revenue for the transfer of retail goods. To achieve this, the CU2million payment is recorded as an asset and is
amortised as the related sales of retails goods are recorded.
BDO comment
The requirement to focus on whether a vendor receives any distinct goods or services in return for a payment to a customer
represents a subtle, but potentially significant, change. In some cases, vendors may currently account for these types of
payments as marketing costs, rather than a reduction in revenue.
TRG discussions
Consideration payable to a customer (Agenda Paper14; January2015)
Questions have arisen about when to apply the new revenue standards guidance on consideration payable to a customer. Many
stakeholders believe that the new revenue standard is not clear about how to account for consideration payable to a customer
when an entity promises to pay consideration after it has already recognised revenue from transferring control of goods or
services to the customer. Some stakeholders believe that consideration payable to a customer (i.e., reduction of revenue)
should be recognised when revenue is recognised. However, others believe that the guidance could be interpreted to allow
recognition at a later date (i.e., when the entity promises or pays the consideration).
The staff view is that the reversal of revenue from variable consideration or consideration payable to a customer should be
made at the earlier of the date that there is a change in the transaction price in accordance with paragraph70 of IFRS15 or the
date at which the consideration payable to a customer is promised in accordance with paragraph72 of IFRS15.
TRG members generally agreed with the staffs conclusion, however certain TRG members noted that it is difficult to support
that position on the basis of the wording in the new revenue standard (i.e., the standard contains internal inconsistencies that
would need to be addressed to support the staffs position).
During the TRG discussions the staff highlighted that a vendor must first identify its customer in order to determine whether
payments represent consideration payable to a customer.
Although the standards variable consideration guidance would arguably apply to consideration payable to a customer if
such consideration is variable, some stakeholders believe that a requirement to include variable consideration payable to
a customer in the transaction price may be inconsistent with the requirement to delay the recognition of consideration
payable to a customer until the entity pays or promises to pay. Further, the FASB and IASB staffs noted that there are different
interpretations regarding (1)which entities meet the definition of a customer and (2)what payments to a customer could result
in a reduction of revenue.
Accordingly, the staffs performed an analysis of the following issues:
Issue1: Assessing which payments to a customer are within the scope of the guidance on consideration payable
to a customer In evaluating this issue, the staffs indicated there are three prevailing interpretations: (1)an entity should
assess all consideration payable (broadly, all payments) to a customer (InterpretationA); (2)an entity should assess only
consideration payable to a customer under a contract with the customer (or combined contracts) (InterpretationB); and
(3)an entity should assess only consideration payable to a customer under a contract with the customer (or combined
contracts) and consideration payable to customers in the distribution chain of the entitys customer (InterpretationC).
The staffs concluded that InterpretationA is the only interpretation supported under the new revenue standard because
the boards acknowledge in paragraphBC257 of the standards basis for conclusions that the receipt of consideration from a
customer and the payment of consideration to a customer can be linked even if they are unconnected events.
Issue2: Determining whether the guidance on consideration payable to a customer applies only to customers in
the distribution chain or more broadly to any customer of an entitys customer In the staffs view, the phrase for
example in paragraphBC255 does not indicate that the guidance on consideration payable to a customer should be applied
to a customers customer that is not in the distribution chain. The staffs noted that those in the distribution chain are the
customers customers and that the phrase customers customer is a plain English way to describe the concept.
Issue3: Timing of recognition of consideration payable to a customer The staffs expressed their belief that the
variable consideration guidance under the new revenue standard does not conflict with the standards guidance on
consideration payable to a customer. They concluded that if the consideration payable to a customer is variable, the
guidance on variable consideration should be applied. Conversely, they determined that if such consideration is not variable,
the guidance on consideration payable to a customer is applicable.
TRG discussions (continued)

Consideration payable to a customer (Agenda Paper14; January2015) (continued)
Issue1 generated considerable debate among TRG members, with some members agreeing with the staffs recommendation
of InterpretationA and others viewing InterpretationB as the appropriate conclusion. However, TRG members generally
agreed that an entity should evaluate a payment to a customer (or to a customers customer) particularly when no goods or
services have been transferred to determine the commercial substance of the payment and whether the payment is linked
(economically) to a revenue contract with the customer. Accordingly, TRG members generally agreed that the FASB staff
should seek to reconcile the Issue1 views articulated in TRG Agenda Paper28 rather than recommend amendments to the new
revenue standard.
On Issues 2 and 3, the TRG did not agree, and FASB members indicated that the Board and its staff should evaluate feedback
from TRG members to determine next steps (most likely at a future TRG meeting), including whether workable solutions
are possible under the new revenue standard or whether a change to the standard is required. Concerns about Issue2 were
primarily related to the identification of a customer, particularly for an agent that may have more than one customer (i.e., the
principal and end customer in a revenue transaction); but TRG members generally agreed that an entity should evaluate a
payment to a customer to determine whether the payment should be linked to a contract (as they did with respect to Issue1).
For Issue3, the crux of the TRGs debate was whether the appropriate timing for recognition of an adjustment to the
transaction price is (1)the communication date (e.g., when a customer is informed of a planned coupon drop), (2)the
management approval date (e.g., when management with relevant authority approves a planned coupon drop), or
(3)determined in accordance with the guidance on constraining variable consideration.
4.4. StepFour Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations

The amount allocated to each separate performance obligation reflects the consideration to which a vendor expects to be
entitled in exchange for transferring the related goods or services to the customer. The starting point for the allocation is to
base it on the stand-alone selling prices of each performance obligation.
IFRS15 brings a substantial change in approach, because existing IFRSs contain very little guidance for allocating a
transaction price to components (or unbundling contracts). Because of this, some entities applied the hierarchy in
IAS8Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors in order to follow the detailed guidance in USGAAP, in
particular those in the software and technology sector. Regardless of whether an entity is moving from existing IFRSs or from
USGAAP that has been applied by analogy, there are likely to be changes in approach because IFRS15 differs from both.
Allocating the transaction price based on the stand-alone selling price

At contract inception a vendor is required to determine the stand-alone selling price of the good or service underlying each
performance obligation and then allocate the transaction price proportionately based on these stand-alone selling prices.
The stand-alone selling price is the price at which a vendor would sell a good or service separately to a customer. The best
evidence of a stand-alone selling price is the observable price of a good or service sold in similar circumstances and to similar
customers. Although a contractually stated price or a list price for a good or service may represent the stand-alone selling
price, this will not always be the case.
When a stand-alone selling price is not directly observable, it is estimated. The objective is to determine the amount of
consideration that the vendor expects to be entitled in return for the good or service. This is achieved by using all available
information including market conditions, vendor-specific factors and information about the customer or class of customers.
In all cases, the use of observable inputs is required to be maximised to the extent possible.
Approaches that might be used include:
Adjusted market assessment
Estimating the price that a customer in the particular market would be prepared to pay, which might include referring to
prices charged by the vendors competitors for similar goods or services, and adjusting those prices as necessary to reflect
the vendors costs and margins.
Expected cost plus margin
Estimating the expected costs of satisfying a performance obligation and adding an appropriate margin.
Residual
Deducting observable stand-alone selling prices that are available for other goods or services to be supplied from the
total contract price. However, the use of this approach is restricted to those goods or services for which there is a wide
range of selling prices (meaning that these cannot be observed from past transactions or other observable evidence), or
in circumstances in which the selling price is uncertain because no selling price has been set for the good or service and it
has not previously been sold on a stand-alone basis.
BDO comment
There are instances where a good or service is never sold separately, but is instead sold as part of a bundle and the bundle may
be sold for a broad range of amounts. This is common in the software industry where software licences are typically bundled
with maintenance for an initial period. Software maintenance (or PCS Post Contract Support) can typically be renewed after
the initial period on a stand-alone basis. The licence and the PCS represent separate performance obligations.
In certain circumstances, an entity may have strong pricing policies for PCS where the entity charges customers a fixed amount
for maintenance renewals and the price does not vary from customer to customer. This could also be the case if PCS renewals
were always stated as a percentage of a licences list price (that is, the list price prior to any customer specific discounts or
adjustments), provided that the list price was not subject to significant regular artificial adjustments.
The question that arises is whether it would be acceptable for an entity to apply the residual approach to establish the stand-
alone selling price for a licence that is never sold separately.
In our view, a residual approach is appropriate in circumstances in which an entity is able to identify that the pricing variability
that exists in the software licence and PCS bundle is attributable to the software licence and that the stand-alone selling price
of the PCS is not highly variable. While the entity does not sell the software licence on its own for a broad range of amounts,
the entity does sell a bundle that contains both software and PCS for a broad range of amounts. However, there is observable
evidence that PCS renewals are always sold for either a fixed amount or a fixed percentage of the list price of the software
being sold. Because there is an observable stand-alone selling price for the PCS, the entity can identify that it is the licence that
is sold to different customers for a broad range of amounts and not the PCS, meaning that the use of the residual approach is
appropriate.
Allocating discounts
A discount exists if the sum of the stand-alone selling prices of the goods or services in the contract exceeds the
consideration payable by the customer. A discount is allocated on a proportionate basis to all performance obligations in
the contract, unless there is observable evidence that the discount is attributable to only some performance obligations in a
contract. This might be the case if a contract is for the supply of three goods, and two of these are frequently sold together
at a discount from the total of the two stand-alone selling prices.
Example
A vendor sells three products (A,BandC) to a customer for CU100. Each product will be transferred to the customer at a
different time. ProductA is regularly sold separately for CU50; productsBandC are not sold separately, and their estimated
stand-alone selling prices are CU25 and CU75 respectively.
There is no evidence that suggests the discount of CU50 relates entirely to one, or a group of two, of the products being sold.
Consequently the discount is allocated proportionately to the three products and revenue is recognised as follows:
A (100x(50/150)) CU33
B (100x(25/150)) CU17
C (100x(75/150)) CU50
If a discount is allocated entirely to only some of the performance obligations in the contract, the discount is allocated before
considering whether it is appropriate to use the residual approach to estimate the stand-alone selling price of a remaining
Example
Assume the same fact pattern as above, except that productsBandC are regularly sold together for consideration of CU50,
the total amount payable by the customer is90 and productA is regularly sold for amounts between CU35 and CU50.
Because the vendor has evidence that a discount of CU50 is regularly applied to productsBandC, the selling price attributed
to those products is determined first with a residual amount being attributed to productA.
Consequently, revenue will be attributed to each product as follows:
A CU40
B (50x(25/100)) CU12.5
C (50x(75/100)) CU37.5
It should be noted that the residual approach resulted in an amount being attributed to productA that is within the range of
prices at which it is regularly sold. If, for example, productA was never sold for less than CU50, then the residual approach
illustrated above would not be appropriate. Instead, the stand-alone selling prices for each separate product would be
estimated and the discount allocated on a relative stand-alone selling price basis.
BDO comment
It is common for vendors in the retail sector to bundle a number of different goods together and sell them at a discount.
Although the approach set out in IFRS15 appears straightforward, care will be required to ensure that discounts are allocated
on an appropriate basis. Historically, when using a residual approach, some entities may not previously have considered the
range of prices at which each good within a bundle has historically been sold separately.
Allocation of variable consideration

Variable consideration may be attributable either to the entire contract, or to specific part(s) of the contract, such as:
One or more, but not all, performance obligations. For example, a bonus may be contingent on the vendor transferring a
good or service within a specified period of time
One or more, but not all, of the distinct goods or services of a single performance obligation. This would apply if, for
example, the consideration promised for the second year of a two-year maintenance service will increase based on
movements in a consumer price index.
A variable amount of consideration (and subsequent changes to that amount) is allocated entirely to a performance
obligation (or a distinct good or service that forms part of a single performance obligation to transfer a series of distinct
goods or services that are substantially the same) if both:
The terms of a variable payment relate specifically to the vendors efforts to satisfy the performance obligation or
transfer the distinct good or service (or to a specific outcome from satisfying the performance obligation or transferring
the distinct good or service); and
The allocation of the variable amount in its entirety to a performance obligation or distinct good or service is consistent
with the objective that the selling price is allocated to each performance obligation in order to reflect the consideration to
which the vendor expects to be entitled in exchange for the good or service.
Example
A vendor enters into a contract with a customer for two licences of intellectual property (licencesAandB). It is determined
that each licence represents a separate performance obligation, which is satisfied at a point in time (the transfer of each of the
licences to the customer). The stand-alone selling prices of the licences are CU1,200 (licenceA) and CU1,500 (licenceB).
ScenarioA
The prices included in the contract are as follows:
LicenceA: a fixed amount of CU1,200, payable 30days from the transfer of the licence to the customer
LicenceB: a royalty payment of5% of the selling price of the customers future sales of products that use licenceB.
The vendor estimates that the amount of sales-based royalties that it will receive in respect of licenceB will be approximately
CU1,500.
The vendor then determines the allocation of the transaction price to each of the two licences. It is concluded that the
allocation should be as follows:
LicenceA: CU1,200
LicenceB: the variable royalty payment.
This allocation is made because both of the following conditions apply:
The variable payment relates solely to the transfer of licenceB (the subsequent royalty payments); and
The fixed amount of licenceA, and the estimated amount of sales-based royalties for licenceB, are equivalent to their
stand-alone selling prices.
Although revenue will be recognised for licenceA on its transfer to the customer, no revenue will be recognised when licenceB
is transferred to the customer. Instead, revenue attributable to licenceB will be recognised when the subsequent sales of the
customers products that use licenceB take place (seesection5.11below).
In contrast, the allocation of variable consideration is different if the prices included in a contract do not reflect stand-alone
selling prices.
ScenarioB
Assume the same example as above, except that the prices included in the contract are:
LicenceA: a fixed amount of CU450
LicenceB: a royalty payment of7.5% of the selling price of the customers future sales of products that use licenceB.
The vendor estimates that the amount of sales-based royalties that it will receive in respect of licenceB will be approximately
CU2,250.
In this case, although the variable payments relate solely to the transfer of licenceB (the subsequent royalty payments),
allocating the variable consideration only to licenceB would be inappropriate. This is because allocating CU450 to licenceA
and CU2,250 to licenceB would not reflect a reasonable allocation based on the stand-alone selling prices of those
twolicences.
Instead, the fixed amount receivable in respect of licenceA is allocated to the two licences on the basis of their stand-alone
selling prices. This allocation is calculated as:
LicenceA: (1,200/2,700)xCU450 CU200
LicenceB: (1,500/2,700)xCU450 CU250
As the sales by the customer of products that use licenceB occur, the royalty income will be allocated to licencesAandB on a
relative stand-alone selling price basis. Because the royalty income will only be recognised when the related product sales take
place, recognition of the royalty income allocated to each of the two licences will be deferred to future periods. Although the
royalty income relates solely to the transfer of licenceB, the allocation of the fixed selling price of licenceA and the estimate of
sales-based royalties to be generated by licenceB is disproportionate in comparison with the stand-alone selling prices of the
twolicences. This means that, in effect, some of the income to be generated by licenceB in fact relates to the sale of licenceA.
TRG discussions
Allocation of discounts and variable consideration (Agenda Paper31; March2015)
TRG members discussed a question about how an arrangement which includes both variable consideration and a discount
should be dealt with. In particular, should the variable consideration guidance be applied first, with the allocation of the
transaction price to performance obligations (including the collection of any discounts) then being applied as appropriate?
TRG members generally agreed with the staff view that the new revenue standard establishes a hierarchy for allocating variable
consideration, including variable discount. In these cases an entity should first apply the guidance on allocating variable
consideration and then apply the guidance on allocating the transaction price, including discounts, to performance obligations.
4.5. StepFive Recognise revenue when each performance obligation is satisfied

Revenue is recognised when (or as) goods or services are transferred to a customer. A vendor satisfies each of its performance
obligations (that is, it fulfils its promises to the customer) by transferring control of the promised good or service underlying
that performance obligation to the customer.
Existing requirements for revenue recognition are based around an assessment of whether the risks and rewards of ownership
of a good or service have been transferred to a customer. The application of the control criterion to all types of transactions
for providing goods or services is one of the main changes in IFRS15 compared with current practice. Under the control
model, an analysis of risks and rewards is only one of a number of factors to be considered and this may lead to a change in
the timing and profile of revenue recognition in certain industries.
Control in the context of IFRS15 is the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from,
an asset. It includes the ability to prevent other entities from directing the use of, and obtaining the benefits from, an asset.
Indicators that control has passed include that the customer has:
A present obligation to pay
Physical possession of the asset(s)
Legal title
Risks and rewards of ownership
Accepted the asset(s).
The benefits of an asset are the potential cash flows (inflows or savings in outflows) that can be obtained directly or
indirectly, such as by:
Using the asset to produce goods or provide services (including public services)
Using the asset to enhance the value of other assets
Using the asset to settle liabilities or reduce expenses
Selling or exchanging the asset
Pledging the asset to secure a debt liability
Holding the asset.
When evaluating whether a customer obtains control of an asset, a vendor considers any agreement to repurchase the asset
transferred to the customer, or a component of that asset.
For each performance obligation, a vendor determines at contract inception whether control is transferred over time or
at a point in time. If it is determined that a vendor does not satisfy a performance obligation over time, the performance
obligation is deemed to be satisfied at a point in time.
Performance obligations satisfied over time

A vendor satisfies a performance obligation and recognises revenue over time when one of the following three criteria is met:
(i) The customer simultaneously receives and consumes the economic benefits provided by the vendors performance
(ii) The vendor creates or enhances an asset controlled by the customer
(iii) The vendors performance does not create an asset for which the vendor has an alternative use, the vendor has an
enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date.
(i) The customer simultaneously receives and consumes the economic benefits provided by the vendors performance
This criterion applies to certain contracts for services, and in some cases it will be straightforward to identify that it
has been met. For example, for routine or recurring services (such as cleaning services) it will be clear that there is
simultaneous receipt by the customer of the vendors performance. The concept of control of an asset applies, because
services are viewed as being an asset (if only momentarily) when they are received and used.
For other performance obligations, it may be less straightforward to identify whether there is simultaneous receipt and
consumption of the benefits from the vendors performance. In these cases, a key test is whether, in order to complete
the remaining performance obligations, another vendor would need to substantially re-perform the work the vendor has
completed to date. If another vendor would not need to do so, then it is considered that the customer is simultaneously
receiving and consuming the economic benefits arising from the vendors performance.
In determining whether another entity would need substantially to reperform the work completed to date, the vendor is
required to:
Disregard any contractual or practical barriers to the transfer of the remaining performance obligations to another
entity; and
Presume that any replacement vendor would not benefit from an asset that it currently controls (such as a work in
progress balance).
TRG discussions
Transfer of control commodities (Agenda Paper43; July2015)
The TRG discussed whether the control of a commodity (such as gas, electricity or heating oil) is transferred at a point in time or
over time.
The TRG members generally agreed that all known facts and circumstances should be considered when determining whether a
customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits of a commodity. These facts and circumstances might include, for
example, the following:
Contract terms
Customer infrastructure
Whether the commodity can be stored or not.
In consequence, revenue related to the sale of a commodity may or may not be recognised over time.
(ii) The vendor creates or enhances an asset controlled by the customer

This criterion is most likely to be relevant when an asset is being constructed on the customers premises. The asset
being sold by the vendor could be tangible or intangible (for example, a building that is being constructed on land owned
by the customer, or customised software that is being written into a customers existing IT infrastructure).
(iii) The vendors performance does not create an asset for which the vendor has an alternative use, the vendor has an
enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date
This two-step criterion may be relevant to entities in the construction and real estate sector, and also applies when a
specialised asset is to be constructed that can only be used by the customer. It may also apply when an asset is to be
constructed to a customers specification.
Alternative use
A vendor does not have an alternative use for an asset if the vendor is unable, either contractually or practically, readily to
direct the asset (which may be an asset to be constructed in future, or a partially completed asset) for another use during
the creation or enhancement of that asset. The assessment is made at contract inception, and takes into account the
characteristics of the asset that will ultimately be transferred. It is not updated unless there is a modification to the contract
that results in a substantive change to the vendors performance obligation(s).
The contractual alternative use restriction applies if the vendor would expect the customer to enforce its rights to the
promised asset if the vendor sought to direct the asset for another use. However, a contractual restriction is not substantive
if, for example, an asset is largely interchangeable with other assets that the vendor could transfer to the customer without
breaching the contract and without incurring significant costs that otherwise would not have been incurred in relation to
that contract. This might apply when the asset being sold is mass produced, and it would be straightforward for one item to
be sold and another substituted. This would apply even if each of the items produced (for example, a car) could be specified
individually by each customer from a range of optional extras, because it is straightforward for another car to be produced
with the same options.
A vendor does not have a practical alternative use for an asset if the vendor would incur significant economic losses to direct
the asset for another use, for example:
Incurring significant costs to rework the asset; or
Only being able to sell the asset at a significant loss.
This may occur in some manufacturing contracts where the basic design of the asset is the same across all contracts, yet the
customisation is substantial and therefore to redirect a nearly completed asset to another customer would require significant
rework.
A vendor does not consider the possibility of a contract termination in assessing whether the vendor is able to redirect the
asset to another customer.
Example
Entities often create original parts for sale to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in the development of new products.
These parts will typically not initially have an alternative use (i.e. they can only be sold to the OEM) and the entity will have
a present right to payment for any production completed to date. Therefore the contract with the OEM to manufacture
parts prior to the aftermarket emerging would meet the criteria in paragraph35(c) of IFRS15 and therefore revenue will be
recognised over time.
Once an aftermarket emerges, the parts which were originally sold only to the OEM and for which there was no alternative use
can be sold to the OEMs end customers.
The issue arises when it is expected that an entity manufacturing original parts for an OEM will be able to sell them in the
aftermarket to third parties outside of the original contract. The question that comes up is whether this precludes the
recognition of revenue over time as the parts will have an alternative use.
Solution
An entity evaluates the no alternative use criteria in paragraph35(c) on a contract by contract basis. Therefore under a
contract with the OEM the sale of original parts to the OEM prior to the aftermarket emerging would not have an alternative
use as the original parts are being specifically built for the OEM and cannot be redirected. Consequently revenue would qualify
to be recognised over time.
Once an aftermarket emerges the criteria in paragraph35(c) would not be met if the entity manufacturing the original parts
can sell them to parties other than the original OEM, and revenue would be recognised at a point in time for contracts entered
into with the OEM and customers and suppliers in the aftermarket.
Enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date

The right to payment for performance completed to date must be enforceable by the vendor in all circumstances, other
than where the contract is terminated due to the vendors failure to carry out its obligations. In assessing that enforceability
a vendor considers the terms of the contract as well as any laws or regulations that relate to the contract. The enforceable
amount must at least compensate the vendor for performance completed to date (i.e. an amount that approximates the
selling price of the goods or services transferred to date), even if the customer has a right of termination.
A vendor must always be entitled to compensation for recovery of costs that it has incurred plus either of the following
amounts:
A proportion of the expected profit margin under the contract, reasonably reflecting the extent of the vendors
performance under the contract before termination by the customer or another third party; or
A reasonable return on the vendors cost of capital for similar contracts (that is, the vendors typical operating margin in
similar contracts or transactions) if the contract specific margin is higher than the return the vendor usually generates
from similar contracts.
A vendors right to payment for performance completed to date does not need to be a present unconditional right to
payment. In many cases, a vendor will have that right only at an agreed-upon milestone or upon complete satisfaction of the
performance obligation, and not throughout the contract term. However, in the event of contract termination, the vendor
must always be entitled to payment for performance completed to date.
A customer might terminate (or take steps to terminate) a contract without having the right to do so (this includes when
a customer fails to perform its obligations as promised). In those circumstances, the contract (or other laws) might entitle
the vendor to continue to carry out its obligations set out in the contract and require the customer to pay the consideration
promised in exchange for those goods or services. This would result in the vendor having a right to payment for performance
completed to date because the vendor has a right to continue to perform its obligations in accordance with the contract and
to require the customer to perform its obligations which include paying the promised consideration. If the vendor is capable
of forcing completion of its own and its customers contractual obligations (including payment in accordance with the original
contractual terms), it is not necessary to satisfy other conditions for the right to payment for performance completed to date.
In assessing the existence and enforceability of a right to payment, a vendor considers whether:
Legislation, legal precedent or administrative practice gives the vendor a right to payment for performance to date even
though that right is not specified in the contract
A court (or other relevant legal precedent) has previously decided that similar rights to payment for performance to date
in similar contracts have no binding legal effect
Its own customary business practices of choosing not to enforce a right to payment have caused that right to be
unenforceable in that legal environment. If the vendor concludes that the right would still be enforceable, the vendor
would have a right to payment for performance to date notwithstanding that the vendor has previously chosen, and may
in the case being analysed choose, to waive that right.
A vendor operating in the real estate industry, and in particular those entities that sell residential units in multi-unit
apartment blocks, that currently analyse contracts in accordance with IFRIC15 Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate
will need to give careful consideration to whether their existing accounting approach will change.
For example, some real estate contracts may result in an asset that cannot (under the terms of the contract) be readily
redirected to another customer (that is, the vendors performance does not create an asset for which the vendor has an
alternative use because it is unable to sell the unit specified in the contract to any other party). In those cases, the focus will
be on whether the contract requires the customer to pay for performance to date in all circumstances other than vendor
default; if that right exists then revenue will typically be recognised over time. However, other real estate contracts that
do not create an asset with an alternative use to the vendor may not require the customer to pay for performance to date,
with either a deposit being forfeited or penalties being payable which represent only the vendors loss of profit. For those
contracts, a vendor will recognise the sale on completion (at a point in time).
Example
EntityA entered into an agreement with EntityB to produce a highly specialised product, which has no alternative use.
EntityB commits to purchase certain volumes of the product over the contract term in order to avoid breaks in its production
process.
The agreement among the parties contains the following features:
EntityB is required to compensate EntityA if it terminates the contract without cause. EntityB is obliged to compensate
EntityA for all costs incurred to date plus an agreed upon margin;
Payment is due upon delivery;
Products are shipped under FOB Destination Terms* to EntityBs international premises and EntityA insures shipment
against potential losses and damages that might affect the product. Therefore, EntityB will not pay for the products before
they are delivered;
Shipment term is around 30days (from EntityAs warehouse to EntityBs international premises).
Due to the features set out above, the contract does not meet the over time recognition criteria in IFRS15.35a) orb).
Nevertheless, the following issues arise in this scenario:
Does the termination clause imply that an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date exists?; and
Is the criterion in IFRS15.35 c) failed because the customer has no obligation to pay if the products are lost or damaged
during the shipping period?
In these circumstances a failure by the vendor to perform because the products are lost or damaged during the shipping period
does not result paragraph35c) being failed, i.e. the entity has an enforceable right for performance completed to date and,
taking into consideration that the product has no alternative use, the requirements for revenue recognition over time are met.
* FOB destination is a contraction of the term Free on Board Destination. The term means that the buyer takes delivery of
goods being shipped to it by a supplier once the goods arrive at the buyers receiving dock.
Measuring progress toward complete satisfaction of a performance obligation

For each performance obligation that is satisfied over time, revenue is recognised by measuring progress towards completion
of that performance obligation. This is achieved based on either:
(i) Output methods
These include appraisals of results, milestones reached, units produced and units delivered; or
(ii) Input methods
These include resources consumed, labour hours expended, costs incurred, time lapsed or machine hours used.
Only those goods or services for which the vendor has transferred control of are included in the assessment of progress to
date.
For each separate performance obligation, the same input or output method of assessing progress to date is required to
be used. The same method is also required to be applied consistently to similar performance obligations and in similar
circumstances.
Output methods result in revenue being recognised based on direct measurement of the value of goods or services
transferred to date in comparison with the remaining goods or services to be provided under the contract. When evaluating
whether to apply an output method, consideration is given to whether the output selected would reflect the vendors
performance toward complete satisfaction of its performance obligation(s). An output method would not reflect the vendors
performance if the output selected fails to measure a material amount of goods or services (for example, work in progress or
finished goods) which are controlled by the customer.
BDO comment
In some cases, depending on the contractual terms, contracts which are currently accounted for as giving rise to revenue
at a point in time may give rise to revenue over time under IFRS15. For example, this might apply to the construction and
sale of certain multi-unit residential apartment blocks. In such cases, because each apartment unit would typically need
to be accounted for separately (as these are each sold to unrelated third parties), practical considerations may arise when
determining the stage of completion of each unit at a reporting date when a building has only partially been completed. This
may require new or modified internal reporting systems.
As a practical expedient, if the amount of a vendors right to consideration from a customer corresponds directly with the
value to the customer of the vendors performance completed to date (e.g. a service contract in which a vendor bills a fixed
amount for each hour of service provided), the vendor recognises revenue at the amount to which the vendor has the right to
invoice.
TRG discussions
Upfront payments (Agenda Paper40; July2015)
Questions were raised about whether the existence of an upfront payment in an arrangement (or a back-end rebate) would
preclude an entity from applying the practical expedient. FASB members noted that the mere existence of an upfront payment
would not automatically preclude application of the expedient. Nevertheless, the nature of the payment and its size as a
percentage of the total arrangement has to be considered.
The TRG also discussed how to measure progress when multiple goods or services are included in a single performance
obligation. It was noted that, a performance obligation may contain multiple goods or services. However, the standard requires
that entities apply a single method to measure progress toward satisfying that obligation.
TRG members noted that in some circumstances it may be difficult to identify a single attribution method that reflects the
entitys performance appropriately. It was also observed that if applying a single attribution method provides an uneconomic
result, this may be an indicator that the separate performance obligations have not been identified properly.
When the information that is required to apply an output method is not observable, or is not available without undue cost, it
may be necessary to use an input measurement method.
Input methods result in revenue being recognised based on the vendors efforts or inputs towards the satisfaction of a
performance obligation. When the vendors efforts or inputs are expended evenly throughout the performance period, it
may be appropriate for a vendor to recognise revenue on a straight-line basis.
A drawback of input methods is that there may not be a direct relationship between the vendors inputs and the transfer
of goods or services to a customer. Therefore, when using a cost-based input method, an adjustment to the measure of
progress may be required if certain costs incurred do not contribute to the vendors progress in satisfying its performance
obligation(s). This would be the case when costs incurred are attributable to significant inefficiencies in the vendors
performance which were not reflected in the price of the contract. In addition, certain costs may not be proportionate to the
vendors progress in satisfying a performance obligation, and IFRS15 then requires an adjustment to be made to the amount
of profit recognised to date. For example if, as part of a contract to refurbish a building, a vendor needs to purchase new
elevators from a third party, the vendor will recognise revenue when control of the elevators is transferred to the customer,
but will recognise no incremental profit. This is because arranging the delivery of the elevators to the customers premises
does not result in any progress being made towards the refurbishment of the building.
In some cases, a vendor may not be able reasonably to measure the outcome of a performance obligation, but may
expect to recover the costs incurred in satisfying that performance obligation (e.g. in the early stages of a contract). In
these circumstances, the vendor recognises revenue only to the extent of the costs incurred to date, until such time that
it can reasonably measure the outcome of the performance obligation. This guidance is similar to the current practice in
IAS11Construction Contracts when a vendor cannot estimate the costs in a long term contract and applies the zero margin
method.
BDO comment
Accounting for partial satisfaction of performance obligations prior to identifying the contract
For some arrangements, an entity may start to provide goods and services before the criteria for the recognition of a contract
are met. Other than the absence of a contract (which is required for step1 of the5 step approach in IFRS15), revenue would
be recognised over time. This might be the case where an entity starts to manufacture a highly customised good in advance
of obtaining an expected contract from a customer. It could also apply when an entity constructs an apartment building, with
some apartments being presold from the plan and others not being sold until the units are partially completed.
When the entity subsequently determines that the criteria for the identification of a contract have been met, the entity would
begin to apply the five step model to recognise revenue. When the terms of the arrangement are such that revenue for the
related good or service is to be recognised over time, the question that raises is whether revenue is recognised prospectively or
is there a cumulative catch-up adjustment.
Revenue should be recognised on a cumulative catch-up basis because IFRS15 requires an entity to recognise revenue when or
as an entity satisfies performance obligations by transferring promised goods or services to a customer. This occurs when (or as)
the customer obtains control of the good or service. When the criteria for the identification of a contract have been met, if the
entity has already satisfied part or all of certain performance obligations by transferring goods or services to its customer, it will
recognise the related amount of consideration to which it expects to be entitled.
Recognising revenue on a prospective basis once the contract criteria have been met would be inconsistent with the control
model underlying revenue recognition in accordance with IFRS15, as control of certain goods or services has already been
transferred to the customer.
This is consistent with views expressed at the March2015 TRG meeting, at which a similar issue was discussed.
TRG discussions
Stand-ready obligations (Agenda Paper16; January2015)
A stand-ready performance obligation is one in which the entity provides a service of standing ready to provide goods or
services. The customer consumes and receives benefit from a stand-ready obligation from the assurance that a resource is
available to it when-and-if needed or called-upon.
Examples of different types of stand ready obligations included in the agenda paper were:
Obligations in which the delivery of the good(s), service(s) or intellectual property underlying the obligation is within
the control of the entity, but for which the entity must still further develop its good(s), service(s) or intellectual property.
For example, a software vendor might promise to transfer unspecified software upgrades at the vendors discretion or
a pharmaceutical company might promise to provide when-and-if-available updates to previously licenced intellectual
property based on advances in research and development
Obligations in which the delivery of the underlying good(s) or service(s) is outside the control of the entity and the
customer. For example, an entity promises to remove snow from an airports runways in exchange for a fixed fee each year
Obligations in which the delivery of the underlying good(s) or service(s) is within the control of the customer. For example,
an entity might agree to provide periodic maintenance, when-and-if needed, on a customers equipment after a pre-
established amount of usage by the customer; and
Making a good or service available to the customer continuously, such as in the health club example in the new revenue
standard (Example18, paragraphsIE92toIE94).
The TRG discussed the nature of an entitys promise in a stand-ready obligations and how an entity should measure progress
towards completion of a stand-ready obligation that is satisfied over time.
It was generally agreed that, in some cases, the nature of the entitys promise in a contract is to stand-ready for a period of
time, rather than to provide the goods or services underlying the obligation. Several members emphasised that judgment
must be exercised when determining whether the nature of the entitys promise is that of standing ready to provide goods
or services or to provide specified goods or services. It was further noted that whether the entitys obligation is to provide
a defined good(s) or service(s) or, instead, to provide an unknown type or quantity of goods or services might be a strong
indicator as to the nature of the entitys promise.
TRG members also agreed that judgment should be exercised in determining the appropriate method to measure progress
towards satisfaction of a stand-ready obligation over time, and the substance of the stand-ready obligation must be
considered to align the measurement of progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation with the nature
of the entitys promise. It was also observed that a straight-line measure of progress might not always be conceptually pure, but
it was also acknowledged that a straight-line measure might be the most reasonable estimate an entity can make for a stand-
ready obligation.
Revenue recognition at a point in time

If a performance obligation is not satisfied over time, a vendor satisfies the performance obligation at a point in time. A
vendor considers indicators of the transfer of control, which include the following:
(i) The vendor has a present right to payment for the asset. If the customer is obliged to pay for the asset, this indicates
that the customer may have the ability to obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the asset.
(ii) The customer has legal title to the asset. Legal title may indicate that the customer has the ability to direct the use of
and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from an asset or to restrict the access of other entities to those
benefits. If a vendor retains legal title over an asset solely as protection against the customers failure to pay, this is a
protective right and does not preclude a customer from obtaining control of that asset.
(iii) The customer has physical possession of an asset. This may indicate that the customer has the ability to direct the use
of and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the asset or to restrict the access of other entities to those
benefits. However, physical possession may not coincide with control of an asset; for example, consignment stock or bill
and hold arrangements may result in physical possession but not control.
(iv) Significant risks and rewards of ownership. When evaluating whether the customer has the risks and rewards of
ownership of an asset, a vendor considers any risks that may give rise to a performance obligation in addition to the
performance obligation to transfer the asset. For example, a vendor may have transferred control of an asset to a
customer but not yet satisfied an additional performance obligation to provide maintenance services related to the
transferred asset.
(v) Acceptance of the asset. The customers acceptance of an asset may indicate that it has obtained the ability to direct the
use of and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the asset.
5. OTHER ISSUES
5.1. Contract costs
A distinction is made between incremental costs incurred in obtaining a contract, and costs incurred to fulfil a contract.
Incremental costs of obtaining a contract

Incremental costs are those costs incurred in obtaining a contract that would not have been incurred had that individual
contract not been obtained. This is restrictive, as any ongoing costs of operating the business will be expensed as incurred.
The only exception is when costs are explicitly charged to a customer regardless of whether a contract is obtained.
For all other, only costs such as a sales commission that is only paid if a specified contract is obtained are incremental;
IFRS15Revenue from Contracts with Customers requires that these are recognised as an asset and then amortised on a basis
that reflects the transfer of goods or services to the customer.
As a practical expedient, incremental costs of acquiring a contract can be recognised as an immediate expense if the
amortisation period would have been one year or less.
BDO comment
Under current guidance, some entities account for the incremental costs of obtaining a contract in accordance with IAS38
Intangible Assets. For those entities, IFRS15 may bring a change in approach because those costs are now explicitly within its
scope. In particular, although the recognition threshold of expected recovery of those costs is similar, IFRS15 is restrictive in
permitting only those costs that are incremental to obtaining a contract to be considered. This is a high threshold, and goes
well beyond the directly attributable threshold that some entities may have used in the past. In practice, in many cases costs
eligible to be capitalised may be restricted to the example given in IFRS15 of a sales commission, with any other costs that
would have been incurred regardless of whether the contract had been obtained being expensed as incurred.
Costs to fulfil a contract

In contrast with the incremental costs of obtaining a contract, which fall wholly within its scope, the requirements of IFRS15
apply only to costs to fulfil a contract which do not fall within the scope of another IFRS (for example, IAS2 Inventories,
IAS16 Property, Plant and Equipment and IAS38 Intangible Assets). For those costs which do fall within the scope of IFRS15,
the threshold for identifying costs to fulfil a contract is lower than the incremental threshold for costs in obtaining a
contract. However, there are still restrictions and all of the following criteria need to be met:
The costs relate directly to a contract or to an anticipated contract that can specifically be identified
The costs generate or enhance resources of the vendor that will be used to satisfy performance obligations in future; and
The costs are expected to be recovered.
Examples
Scenario1
A sales employee is paid a commission for each contract obtained with a customer. CU100 is paid for a new customer contract.
CU60 is paid each time that same customer renews the contract. Assume the CU60 renewal commission is not considered
commensurate with the CU100 commission paid on the initial contract.
How would contract costs be accounted for?
The CU100 paid for the new customer contract must be capitalised at contract inception.
The CU60 for each renewal must be capitalised upon renewal because it is considered an incremental cost that would not have
been incurred if the renewal contract was not obtained.
If the renewal contract is not a specifically anticipated future contract and the renewal commission is considered
commensurate with the initial commission an entity would amortise the CU100 paid for the new customer contract over the
original contract term and then amortise each capitalised renewal amount over the respective renewal period.
Alternative amortisation approaches include:
a) Amortising the initial amount capitalised over the contract period that includes the specific anticipated renewals (that
is, over the expected customer relationship) and amortise each capitalised renewal amount over the respective renewal
period; or
b) Separate the amortisation of the CU100 capitalised into two components: amortise CU60 over the original contract term
and CU40 over the period of the initial contract and the specific anticipated renewals and upon renewal, capitalise CU60
and amortise it over the renewal period.
Scenario2 (looking at subsequent commission)

An employee receives an initial commission based on the contract price when the contract is obtained. This commission
is considered incremental, so it is capitalised under the new revenue standard. Subsequently, the customer modifies the
contract to purchase additional goods, and the modification does not result in the company accounting for the modification
as a separate contract. The employee is paid an additional commission based on the increase in the contract price from the
modification.
How would contract costs be accounted for?
Even though the contract modification is not accounted for as a separate contract, the increase in the contract price results in a
cost (that is, the commission) that is incremental to obtaining the modified contract. Therefore, the additional commission paid
is an incremental cost of obtaining a contract and should be capitalised.
TRG discussions
Amortisation and impairment of capitalised contract acquisition costs (Agenda Papers4and23; July2014 and
January2015)
At the July2014 TRG meeting, the question about the period over which an asset arising from contract acquisition costs would
be amortised was raised. In particular, it was discussed whether this should include a contract extension or renewal period
when the extension or renewal is at the option of the customer. It was noted that this period should be taken into account if the
vendor expects that the customer will extend or renew the contract, and that the asset relates to goods or services that would
be transferred to the customer during the extension or renewal period.
As explained above, the new revenue standard requires entities to capitalise (1)incremental costs of obtaining a revenue
contract and (2)costs of fulfilling a revenue contract (if certain criteria are met) and test such assets for impairment. Under
the new guidance, an impairment exists when the carrying amount of the contract asset exceeds the remaining amount of
consideration that the entity expects to receive in exchange for the goods or services to which the asset relates less associated
costs that have not yet been recognised.
To test contract assets for impairment, an entity must consider the total period over which it expects to receive an economic
benefit from the contract asset. Accordingly, to estimate the amount of remaining consideration that it expects to receive, the
entity would also need to consider goods or services under a specific anticipated contract (i.e., including renewals). However,
the impairment guidance appears to contradict itself because it also indicates that entities should apply the principles used
to determine the transaction price when calculating the amount of consideration that an entity expects to receive. The
determination of the transaction price would exclude renewals.
Many TRG members expressed the view that when testing a contract asset for impairment, an entity would consider the
economic benefits from anticipated contract extensions or renewals if the asset related to the goods and services that would be
transferred during those extension or renewal periods. No TRG members or board members presented an alternate view.
5.2. Changes in the transaction price after contract inception

For certain contracts, the transaction price is not fixed. Consequently, after contract inception, the resolution of uncertain
events or changes in circumstances can result in a variation of the amount to which the vendor expects to be entitled in
return for goods or services.
Any changes in the transaction price subsequent to contract inception are allocated to the performance conditions on the
same basis as at contract inception. Amounts that are allocated to performance obligation(s) which have already been
satisfied are recognised as revenue (or as a reduction of revenue if necessary) in the period in which the transaction price
changes. This approach ensures that changes in estimates of variable consideration that are included in (or excluded from)
the transaction price will be allocated to the performance obligation(s) to which the variable consideration relates.
A change in the transaction price is allocated entirely to one or more distinct goods or services only if the criteria for
allocation of variable consideration to performance obligations are met. These are that:
The terms of a variable payment relate specifically to the satisfaction of a performance obligation or to distinct goods or
services
The allocation meets the objective that the amount allocated to each performance obligation or distinct good or service
reflects the amount to which the vendor expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the goods or services to the
customer.
Changes in stand-alone selling prices after contract inception are not reflected in the basis of determining the reallocation of
the transaction price.
For a change in the transaction price that occurs as a result of a contract modification, a vendor allocates the change in the
transaction price in whichever of the following ways is applicable:
The change in the transaction price is allocated to the performance obligations identified in the contract before the
modification if, and to the extent that, the change in the transaction price is attributable to an amount of variable
consideration promised before the modification and the modification is accounted for as termination of the original
contract and the establishment of a new contract
In all other cases, being those in which the modification is not accounted for as a separate contract, the change in the
transaction price is allocated to the performance obligations in the modified contract (i.e. the performance obligations
that were unsatisfied or partially unsatisfied immediately after the modification).
5.3. Sale with a right of return

A right to return enables a customer to receive:
A full or partial refund of any consideration paid
A credit that can be applied against amounts owed or that will be owed to the vendor
Another product in exchange
Any combination of the above.
A right to return may be given for various reasons (e.g. dissatisfaction with the product). In practice, a right to return is
usually attached to the sale of goods, but can also be attached to the transfer of some services that are provided by the
vendor subject to refunds.
When a vendor transfers products with a right of return, revenue is recognised only to the extent that the vendor expects to
be entitled to it. To determine the amount of consideration to which it expects to be entitled, a vendor:
Applies the guidance regarding constraining estimates of variable consideration
Considers the nature of the products expected to be returned.
A refund liability (rather than revenue) is recognised for any consideration received to which the vendor does not expect
to be entitled (that is, which relates to goods that it expects to be returned). An asset is also recognised for the vendors
right to recover the goods from customers on settling the refund liability. The asset is measured by reference to the former
carrying amount of the good less any expected costs to recover those products (including potential decreases in the value
of the good). The asset is presented separately from the refund liability (offsetting is not permitted). If the value is less than
the amount recorded in inventory, the carrying amount of inventory is reduced with a corresponding adjustment to cost of
goods sold.
A vendors obligation to accept a returned product during the return period is not accounted for as a performance obligation
in addition to the obligation to provide a refund.
In subsequent periods the vendor updates:
Its assessment(s) of amounts to which it expects to be entitled in exchange for the transferred products
The measurement of the refund liability at the end of each reporting period for changes in expectations about the
amount of refunds
The measurement of the asset (i.e. so that it corresponds with changes in the measurement of the refund liability and any
impairment recognised).
Example
On 1January20X4, a vendor (a retailer) sells 100identical goods to different customers, at a sales price of CU100
(totalCU10,000). The cost of each good is CU60. Revenue is recognised at the point at which a customer buys one of the
goods, and customers have a right to return the good for a period of 30days from the original purchase, in return for a full
refund.
The right of return gives rise to variable consideration. Based on substantial historic experience with the good, and on future
expectations, the vendor estimates that three of the goods will be returned. The amount and quality of evidence available
means that the vendor is able to conclude that it is highly probable that there will not be a significant reversal of revenue if it
recognises revenue attributable to the 97goods that it does not expect to be returned.
On 1January20X4, the vendor recognises revenue of CU9,700(CU100x97) together with a refund liability of
CU300(CU100x3). Inventory of CU180(CU60x3) continues to be recorded, because the vendor concludes that the goods
that it expects to be returned will be capable of being sold for at least that amount.
BDO comment
The effect of the accounting requirements is that a sale is not recognised for the three goods that are expected to be returned.
The view taken is that, because the customers that have purchased these goods are expected to return them to the vendor,
control over those goods has not passed from the vendor to the customer.
In some cases, the vendor may conclude that the goods it expects to be returned will either not be capable of being sold to
other customers, or will need to be sold for an amount below their original cost. In such cases, in addition to recording a refund
liability, a charge will be made to profit or loss for the write down in the carrying amount of the related inventory.
TRG discussions
Accounting for restocking fees and other related costs (Agenda Paper35; July2015)
Sometimes restocking fees are charged to customers when they return products to the entity. Most of the TRG members
agreed with the staff view that these restocking fees and other related costs should be accounted for at the point at which the
product is transferred to the customer. This is because the sale of a product with restocking fees is similar to a partial return
right.
5.4. Warranties
IFRS15 distinguishes between two types of warranties:
Warranties that provide a customer with the assurance that the product will function as intended because it complies
with agreed-upon specifications. These warranties are accounted for in accordance with the guidance on product
warranties included within IAS37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets
Warranties that provides the customer with a service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-
upon specifications. These additional service warranties are accounted for as a performance obligation and allocated a
portion of the transaction price in accordance with the principles of IFRS15.
In assessing whether a contract contains a service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon
specifications, a vendor considers factors such as:
Whether the warranty is required by law
The length of the warranty coverage period
The nature of the tasks that the vendor promises to perform.
If a customer does not have an option of whether to purchase a warranty separately, it is accounted for in accordance with
IAS37 unless part or all of that warranty provides the customer with a service in addition to an assurance that the good or
services complies with agreed-upon specifications.
BDO comment
In some cases, careful consideration will be needed of whether a warranty goes beyond providing assurance that a product
will comply with agreed-upon specifications, and need at least partially to be accounted for separately. For example, in some
jurisdictions car manufacturers include a warranty period which goes well beyond the period required by law, which is used as a
marketing tool to enhance sales.
TRG discussions
Warranties as performance obligations (Agenda Paper29; March2015)
Questions arise about how an entity would determine whether a product warranty that is not separately priced is a
performance obligation (i.e., whether the warranty represents a service rather than a guarantee of the products intended
functionality). For illustrative purposes, the staff discussed an example in which a luggage company provides a lifetime
warranty to repair any damage to the luggage free of charge. It was noted that such a warranty would be a separate
performance obligation because the company agreed to repair any damage at any point after purchase (i.e. repairs extend
beyond those that deal with defects preventing the luggage from functioning as intended).
The staff noted that the luggage example illustrates a relatively [straightforward] set of facts and circumstances that
demonstrate an instance of when a warranty provides a service and further observed that the conclusion for other warranty
arrangements may be less clear. Accordingly, the staff reiterated that an entity will need to assess the substance of the promises
in a warranty arrangement and exercise judgment on the basis of the entitys specific facts and circumstances.
TRG members generally agreed with the staff conclusion for the fact pattern presented. Some of the discussion focused on the
duration of the warranty (i.e., the lifetime warranty in the luggage company example), but FASB staff members reiterated that
while duration may be an indicator of whether a warranty is a separate performance obligation, it is not determinative. The
FASB staff further reiterated that the papers main purpose was educational that is, its primary aim was to counter the claim
made by some stakeholders that nothing has changed from current practice and to demonstrate that an entity would need to
use judgment in determining whether there are additional performance obligations to which the transaction price should be
allocated.
BDO comment
Some warranties give the purchaser a right to compensation (i.e. a refund), rather than replacement or repair.
A question which then arises is whether a warranty that gives the customer a right to a refund for a defective product should be
accounted for as an assurance warranty in accordance with IAS37, or as a right of return in accordance with IFRS15 which will
give rise to variable consideration?
In our view, a customers right to return a defective item for compensation (a refund) should be accounted for as a right of
return in accordance with IFRS15. In many cases this will be a change in practice from how these refunds are accounted for
under current guidance.
IFRS15 is clear that a warranty that provides the customer with a right to a refund should be accounted for as variable
consideration based on the definition of a right of return. This view is supported by the basis for conclusions in IFRS15.BC367
which states:
A return right gives an entity a contractual right to recover the good from a customer if the customer exercises its option
to return the good and obtain a refund.
In addition, in the section of the basis for conclusions related to warranties, IFRS15.BC376 states that:
the Boards decided that an entity should recognise an assurance-type warranty as a separate liability to replace or
repair a defective product.
This definition of an assurance-type warranty does not include defective products that are returned for a refund, but only
contemplates defective products that are replaced or repaired. When discussing warranties the Boards state in IFRS15.BC369
that:
a unifying feature of all warranties is that an entity promises to stand ready to replace or repair the product in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty
Again this omits the possibility of returning a defective item for a refund.
As a result, for goods that are sold with a warranty that gives the customer the right to return a defective product in return for a
refund will be subject to the guidance for variable consideration. This requires an estimate to be made of the amount of revenue
to which the vendor will be entitled, which will be the gross amount for all goods sold less the amount of revenue attributable
to the items that are estimated to be returned. That is, no revenue is recognised for items expected to be returned.
When estimating the amount of revenue to which a vendor will be entitled, IFRS15 restricts the amount of revenue that can be
recognised to an amount for which it is highly probable that there will not be a subsequent significant reversal in the cumulative
amount of revenue recognised when the subsequent uncertainty (in this case, the number of defective products returned
in exchange for a refund) is resolved. In estimating the amount of revenue, either an expected value approach (the sum of
probability weighted amounts for a portfolio of contracts for similar items) or the most likely amount approach (the single most
likely outcome of a contract) is required to be used. The approach selected is based on which is expected better to predict the
amount of consideration to which an entity will ultimately be entitled once the actual returns experience is known.
This means that no revenue is ultimately recognised for returned products for which a refund is made and any changes to the
estimated amount of refunds are accounted for an upward or downward adjustment to revenue. This is consistent with the
accounting for consideration payable to a customer, which is recorded as a reduction of the transaction price.
5.5. Principal vs. agent

When a third party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, the vendor is required to determine whether the
nature of its promise is a performance obligation is to:
Provide the specified goods or services itself (principal); or
Arrange for a third party to provide those goods or services (agent).
A vendor acting as principal controls a good or service before the vendor transfers the good or service to the customer. A
vendor that qualifies as a principal may satisfy a performance obligation by itself or engage another party (for example,
a subcontractor) to satisfy some or all of a performance obligation on its behalf. When a vendor, in its role as a principal,
satisfies a performance obligation, it recognises revenue at the gross amount. However, the vendor is not necessarily acting
as a principal if the vendor obtains legal title of a product only shortly before legal title is transferred to a customer.
The obligation of an agent is to arrange for the provision of goods or services by another third party. When a vendor
represents an agent, and satisfies a performance obligation, it recognises revenue as the amount of any fee or commission
to which it expects to be entitled. A vendors fee or commission might be the net amount of consideration that the vendor
retains after paying the third party the consideration received in exchange for the goods or services to be provided by that
party.
The following points indicate that the vendor qualifies as an agent:
Another third party is responsible for fulfilling the contract
The vendor does not have inventory risk
The vendor does not have discretion in establishing prices for the other third partys goods or services
The vendors consideration is in the form of a commission
The vendor is not exposed to credit risk for the amount receivable from the customer.
BDO comment
Under current guidance, in practice it has sometimes been difficult to identify which party is acting as principal and which as
agent. We expect those judgements to continue to be challenging when accounting in accordance with IFRS15, which reflects
the complexity of certain transactions, and the way in which they are undertaken. For example, transactions involving virtual
goods and services are often executed in milliseconds and involve multiple counterparties. Consequently, control over a virtual
good may, in some cases, transfer almost instantaneously.
It is likely that significant focus will need to be placed on the precise contractual terms of the arrangements, in order to
determine the nature of the promises made (that is, what each party is providing) and the consideration payable to each
party. This links to the first of the five steps in IFRS15, which is to identify the contract, including the goods or services to be
transferred and the payment terms.
TRG discussions
Principal vs. Agent (Agenda Paper1; July2014 and Clarifications to IFRS15)
In connection with the guidance set out above, the TRG discussed a number of issues regarding paragraphsB34-B38 (Principal
vs. Agent considerations). Some stakeholders questioned whether control is always the basis for determining whether an entity
is a principal or an agent, and how the control principle and the indicators in paragraphB37 work together. Other stakeholders
questioned how to apply the control principle to contracts involving intangible goods or services.
As a consequence of this, the IASB issued Clarifications to IFRS15 in April2016 to clarify the application of the control principle.
It has amended paragraphsB34-B38 of IFRS15, Examples45-48 accompanying IFRS15 and has added Examples46Aand48a.
The FASB reached the same decisions as the IASB regarding the application of the control principle when assessing whether an
entity is a principal or an agent.
The TRG discussed at its July2014 meeting whether certain types of billing to customers should be accounted for as revenues:
Shipping and handling fees
Reimbursements of other out-of-pocket expenses
Taxes collected from customers.
TRG members noted that the revenue standard provides sufficient guidance about determining the appropriate presentation of
amounts billed to customers and that an entity would therefore record the gross amount received from a customer unless the
entity is only collecting amounts on behalf of third parties. It is necessary to consider the principal and agent guidance to help
determine how to present these types of billings.
Shipping and handling fees (Agenda Paper2; July2014 and Amendments to Topic606)
Some stakeholders in the US have expressed differing views about whether and when shipping and handling activities that
occur after the transfer of control to the customer should be accounted for as a promised service or as a fulfilment activity. The
FASB has made an amendment to Topic606 to state explicitly that an entity is permitted (as an accounting policy choice) to
account for shipping and handling activities that occur before the customer obtains control of the related good as fulfilment
activities. The IASB has not made a similar amendment in order to avoid creating an exception to the revenue recognition
model.
Taxes (Agenda Paper2; July2014 and Clarifications to IFRS15)

Due to the concerns expressed by some US stakeholders about the cost and complexity of assessing tax laws in each
jurisdiction, the FASB decided to permit entities an accounting policy choice to exclude from the measurement of the
transaction price all taxes assessed by a governmental authority that are both imposed on and concurrent with a specific
revenue-producing transaction and collected from customers (for example, sales, use or value added taxes). The IASB has
decided not to provide a similar accounting policy choice under IFRS15.
5.6. Customer options for additional goods or services

Customer options to acquire additional goods or services (either free of charge or at a discount) come in many forms,
including sales incentives, customer award credits (or points), contract renewal options, or other discounts on future goods
or services. Such customer options give rise to a performance obligation in the contract when the option provides a material
right to the customer that it would not receive without entering into the contract. In those cases, the vendor is required to
defer the portion of payment received from its customer that relates to those future goods or services and recognises that
portion as revenue only when those future goods or services are transferred to the customer (or when the option expires).
The allocation is based on the relative stand-alone selling prices of the goods or services and, if the prices of the future
potential goods or services are not observable, they are estimated. This estimate takes into account any discount that the
customer would receive without exercising the option together with the likelihood that the option will be exercised.
TRG discussions
Accounting for a customers exercise of a material right (Agenda Papers18and32; JanuaryandMarch2015)
The revenue standard does not provide explicit guidance on the accounting model to apply when such an option is exercised.
The question that arises is whether it should be considered a continuation of the original contract or a contract modification.
TRG members considered that the option to exercise the material right should be viewed as a continuation of the contract, but
agreed with the staff view that it would be reasonable for an entity to apply either approach.
TRG discussions
Loyalty programs (Agenda Paper6; October2014)
Questions have arisen regarding the application of this guidance to (1)loyalty programs in which customers accumulate
points that may be used for future goods or services, (2)certain types of discount vouchers, (3)certain renewal options, and
(4)contracts that include a customers payment of a nonrefundable up-front fee and renewal options. In particular, views differ
on whether an entitys evaluation of an option (to determine whether it represents a material right) should:
a) Take into account only the current transaction, or should include past and expected transactions
b) Include an assessment of only quantitative factors or both quantitative and qualitative factors.
TRG members generally agreed that in determining whether an option for future goods or services is a material right, an entity
should (1)consider factors outside the current transaction (e.g. the current class of customer) and (2)assess both quantitative
and qualitative factors. Further, TRG members noted that an entity should also evaluate incentives and programs to understand
whether they are customer options designed to influence customer behaviour because this could be an indicator that an option
is a material right.
In addition, some TRG members expressed concerns about the examples in the new revenue standard. Board members noted
that the quantitative examples were not meant to establish thresholds but to illustrate how the related guidance would be
applied. It was also acknowledged that an entity would need to exercise significant judgment in assessing whether an option is
a material right.
Regarding certain offers, such as buy three and get one free, TRG members noted that the quantities involved are less
important than the fact that an entity would be giving away future sales in such cases. While not determinative, such an
indicator may lead an entity to conclude that a customer option is a material right.
TRG members also discussed loyalty programs that have an accumulation feature. Some TRG members noted that through
the presence of an accumulation feature in a loyalty program, the entity gives its customers a material right. Others, however,
indicated that the accumulation feature is not a determinative factor that would automatically lead an entity to conclude that
the entity grants its customers a material right. Instead, if an accumulation feature is present, an entity would be required to
evaluate the program.
TRG discussions (continued)

Loyalty programs (Agenda Paper6; October2014) (continued)
Other of the questions raised was how an entity should determine when a contract contains an option to purchase additional
goods and services or includes variable consideration based on a variable quantity (a usage based fee, for example).
TRG members agreed that all facts and circumstances should be taken into account when analysing these kind of contracts and
that this analysis requires judgement.
When a customers option exists the vendor is not required to provide additional goods and/or services until the customer
exercises the option. On the other hand, in a contract that includes variable consideration the vendor has a present obligation
to transfer all goods and services requested by the customer.
The following example was discussed:
A vendor enters into a multi-year software arrangement with a customer, where there is a fixed fee amounting to CU500,000
for up to 500users. For each additional user the customer has to pay CU800.
It was generally agreed that whether the contract is for a single licence or for multiple licences requires judgment and
consideration of all facts and circumstances.
The analysis that needed to be performed in this case was to determine whether the additional software usage represented an
option to purchase additional goods and services or variable consideration based on a variable quantity.
If it was concluded that the customer had an option, the vendor would need to determine at contract inception whether the
option represented a material right and, if so, allocate a portion of the transaction price to that material right. If the option
was not a material right, there would be no accounting until the additional purchases occur. If the customers ability to add
additional users was considered variable consideration, revenue would be recognised as the additional purchases occur.
5.7. Renewal options

A renewal option gives a customer the right to acquire additional goods or services of the same type as those supplied under
an existing contract. If a renewal option provides a customer with what IFRS15 terms a material right, the effect can be to
defer the recognition of revenue to future periods.
IFRS15 includes criteria to distinguish renewal options from other options to acquire additional goods or services:
1. The additional goods or services are similar to the original goods or services in the contract (i.e. a vendor continues to
provide what it was already providing). Consequently, it is more intuitive to view the goods or services underlying such
options as part of the initial contract.
2. The additional goods or services are provided in accordance with the terms of the original contract. Consequently, the
vendors position is restricted because it cannot change those terms and conditions and, in particular, it cannot change
the pricing of the additional goods or services beyond the parameters specified in the original contract.
IFRS15 also includes a practical alternative to estimate the stand-alone selling price of the option, by allowing entities to
include the optional goods or services that it expects to provide (and corresponding expected customer consideration) in the
initial measurement of the transaction price. This practical alternative acknowledges that for some entities it may be simpler
to account for renewal options within a single contract, rather than as a contract with a series of options.
A renewal option is different from customer loyalty programmes and many discount vouchers. This is because, for those
programmes and vouchers, the underlying goods or services in the contract with the customer will often have a different
nature, and accordingly they would be considered as separate deliverables rather than being similar to the original goods or
services in the original contract.
Accounting for early renewal rights

It is common for entities to offer non-cancellable contracts that provide the customer with the option to renew the contract
prior to contract expiry. This would be common in telecommunications industry and other industries where a product is sold
on day1 of the contract with ongoing services to be provided over the contract period.
Example
CompanyX is in the telecommunications industry, and offers the following contract to customers:
24month non-cancellable contract which includes a device and a package of services.
Customers pay 24equal monthly instalments. CompanyX allocates each instalment between the device and the services
on the same basis.
The contract states that the customer has an option to renew their contract at any time after 21months without penalty (no
recovery is made of instalments that would have been made during the period from renewal up to the end of the original
24month contract period).
The early renewal results in the customer obtaining a new device and the same services for a subsequent 24months from
the renewal date.
The renewed contract is priced at the stand-alone selling price for that contract at the time that the customer exercises the
early renewal right.
The issue is how the customers option to renew early (prior to the full contract term of 24months ending) should be accounted
for in accordance with IFRS15.
The early renewal right was embedded in the rights and obligations agreed to by the parties at contract inception. Therefore
the early renewal option is not a contract modification because it is not an amendment to the original rights and obligations of
the parties. IFRS15.18 states that:
A contract modification exists when the parties to the contract approve a modification that either creates new or
changes existing enforceable rights and obligations of the parties to the contract.
The option to renew early affects the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled for the device
provided to the customer on day1. This is because the amount of consideration could vary depending on when customers
exercise their option to renew. Consequently, the amount of consideration in respect of the device is variable consideration as
described in IFRS15.51.
CompanyX will therefore need to estimate the amount of variable consideration to which it will be entitled, in accordance with
IFRS15.56-59. This requires that variable consideration (in this case the monthly instalments between months21and24) will
only be recognised as revenue to the extent that it is highly probable that there will not be a significant reversal in the amount
of cumulative revenue recognised when the uncertainty over the variable consideration is resolved.
In this case, the uncertainty will be resolved when it is known whether the customers will exercise their renewal rights early.
This will affect the allocation of monthly instalments between the handset (for which revenue will be recognised on inception
of the contract with a related receivable being settled through the partial allocation of future monthly instalments) and the
services (for which revenue will be recognised over the period of the contract, being the residual amount after deduction of the
amount allocated to the handset).
The amount of variable consideration that is taken into account will depend on the facts and circumstances in each case.
However, for a period of more than 21months to be taken into account for part or all of the customer base, clear evidence
would be required of the expected pattern of exercise of the early renewal option.
5.8. Customers unexercised rights

Customers unexercised rights refer to instances where there is breakage in a contract, such as where a customer does
not exercise all its contractual rights from the contract to receive goods or services in the future. Common examples for
customers unexercised rights include the purchase of gift cards and non-refundable tickets.
When a vendor expects to be entitled to a breakage amount in a contract liability, the vendor recognises the expected
breakage amount as revenue in proportion to the pattern of rights exercised by the customer. This effectively increases
the transaction price allocated to the individual goods or services to be transferred to include revenue from the vendors
estimate of unexercised rights, and means that breakage is not recognised as revenue until the vendor has fulfilled its
obligations. This reflects that an airline that sells non-refundable tickets would be presumed to increase its selling price per
ticket if no breakage was expected.
When the vendor does not expect to be entitled to a breakage amount, the expected breakage amount is recognised as
revenue when the likelihood of the customer exercising its remaining rights becomes remote.
BDO comment
IFRS15 is restrictive and the way in which breakage is to be accounted for will depend on the underlying circumstances. This
will include consideration of the constraint on recognition of variable consideration, which arises from uncertainty over the
number of customers that will not exercise their remaining rights (for example, failing to use gift cards by a specified expiry
date). Existing guidance is less prescriptive, and some entities may need to change their accounting approach. In some cases,
customers options may be perpetual and not have an expiration date. The question that arises in these cases is whether an
entity can apply the guidance on unexercised rights in IFRS15.
In our view, an entity should apply the guidance on unexercised rights, subject to the guidance on constraining estimates of
variable consideration.
The guidance on options requires an entity to estimate the stand-alone selling price of the option at contract inception,
considering the likelihood that the option will be exercised. The guidance also requires an entity to recognise any change in the
likelihood that the option will be exercised when estimating the measure of progress of the performance obligation related to
the option.
As a result, the stand-alone selling price of the option is not updated; instead, the entity updates its estimate of the portion of
the option that will be redeemed. This results in the entity recognising revenue in proportion to the pattern or recognition of
other performance obligations in the contract.
Once the number of options expected to be exercised have actually been exercised, the entity would no longer have a contract
liability.
In situations where a single option exists and the portfolio approach is not or cannot be applied, the stand-alone selling price
of the option would still include the likelihood that the option will be exercised. The revenue related to the option would be
recognised when the option is exercised or when it is determined that the likelihood of the option being exercised becomes
remote.
5.9. Non-refundable upfront fees

A vendor may charge a customer a non-refundable upfront fee at (or near) contract inception, which may be related to an
activity that the vendor is required to undertake at (or near) contract inception in order to fulfil the contract (for example,
joining fees in health club membership contracts). The vendor is required to determine whether the fee relates to the transfer
of a promised good or service, in order to identify the performance obligations within the contracts.
When the non-refundable upfront fee is not related to a performance obligation but to setup activities or other
administrative tasks, the non-refundable upfront fee is accounted for as an advance payment for future goods or services and
is therefore only recognised as revenue when those future goods or services are provided.
In practice, non-refundable upfront fees typically relate primarily to setup activities, and not to a performance obligation.
5.10. Licencing
A licence establishes a customers rights over the intellectual property of a vendor, such as:
Software and technology
Media and entertainment (e.g. motion pictures)
Franchises
Patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
A contract to transfer (provide) a licence to a customer may include performance obligations in addition to the promised
licence. Those obligations may be specified in the contract or implied by the vendors customary business practices,
published policies or specific statements. The accounting treatment depends on whether or not the licence is distinct from
other goods or services promised.
When the licence is not distinct from other goods or services to be provided in accordance with the contract, the licence and
other goods or services are accounted for together as a single performance obligation. This would be the case, for example,
when the licence forms a component of a tangible good and is integral to the goods functionality (for example, software
which requires ongoing maintenance and upgrade services in order for it to continue to operate), or it is a licence that the
customer can benefit from only in conjunction with a related service (for example, a software hosting agreement on an
internet site).
When the licence is distinct from other promised goods or services in the contract, the licence is a separate performance
obligation. Revenue is then recognised either at a point in time, or over time, depending on whether the nature of the
vendors promise in transferring the licence to the customer is to provide that customer with either:
Access to the vendors intellectual property as it exists at any given time throughout the licence period (i.e. the vendor
continues to be involved with its intellectual property); or
A right to use the vendors intellectual property as it exists at a point in time the licence is granted.
A vendor continues to be involved with its intellectual property by undertaking activities that do not transfer goods or
services to the customer, but instead change its intellectual property to which the customer has rights. This applies if all of
the following criteria are met:
(i) The contract requires, or the customer reasonably expects that the vendor will undertake, activities that significantly
affect the intellectual property to which the customer has rights (that is, the intellectual property to which the customer
has rights is dynamic).
Factors that may indicate that a customer could reasonably expect that a vendor will undertake activities that will
significantly affect the intellectual property include:
The vendors customary business practices
Published policies
Specific statements
The existence of a shared economic interest (e.g. a sales-based royalty) between the vendor and the customer
related to the intellectual property licenced to the customer.
(ii) The rights granted by the licence directly expose the customer to any positive or negative effects of the vendors
activities that affect the intellectual property as and when the vendor undertakes those activities.
(iii) The vendors activities do not transfer a good or a service to the customer as those activities occur (that is, the activities
are not accounted for as performance obligations).
When all of the above criteria are met, a vendor accounts for the licence as a performance obligation satisfied over time
because the customer will simultaneously receive and benefit from the vendors performance as the performance occurs. An
appropriate method is selected to measure the vendors progress toward complete satisfaction of its performance obligation
to provide access to the intellectual property.
Clarifications to IFRS15
The TRG discussed issues relating to the application of the licencing guidance in IFRS15. Those issues related to:
Determining the nature of the entitys promise in granting a licence of intellectual property;
The scope and applicability of the sales-based and usage-based royalties exception;
The effect of contractual restrictions in a licence on identifying the performance obligations in the contract; and
When the guidance on determining the nature of the entitys promise in granting a licence applies.
As a consequence of these discussions the IASB has decided to clarify the application guidance on licencing and the
accompanying Illustrative Examples.
Except for the scope and applicability of the sales-based and usage-based royalties exception, the FASB reached different
conclusions on these issues. Consequently, for a limited number of arrangements, it is possible that the accounting under IFRS
and USGAAP will differ.
Activities affecting the intellectual property

To clarify when an entitys activities significantly affect the intellectual property to which the customers has rights, the IASB has
added paragraphB59A to IFRS15, which states the following:
An entitys activities significantly affect the intellectual property to which the customer has rights when either:
a) Those activities are expected to significantly change the form (for example, the design or content) or the functionality (for
example, the ability to perform a function or task) of the intellectual property to which the customer has rights; or
b) The ability of the customer to obtain benefit from the intellectual property is substantially derived from, or dependent
upon, those activities. For example, the benefit from a brand is often derived from, or dependent upon, the entitys ongoing
activities that support or maintain the value of the intellectual property.
Accordingly, if the intellectual property to which the customer has rights has significant stand-alone functionality, a substantial
portion of the benefit is derived from that functionality. Consequently, the ability of the customer to obtain benefit from that
intellectual property would not be significantly affected by the entitys activities unless those activities change its form or
functionality. Types of intellectual property that often have significant stand-alone functionality include software, biological
compounds or drug formulas, and completed media content (for example, films, television shows and music recordings).
Example
A vendor grants a franchise licence to a customer, which provides the right to use the vendors trade name and sell its products
for a period of 10years. During this period, the vendor will undertake activities that will affect the franchise licence, including
analysing changes in customer preferences, implementing product improvements and undertaking marketing campaigns.
The nature of the vendors promise to its customer is to provide access to the vendors intellectual property in its form as exists
throughout the licence period, and not only as it exists at the start of the licence period. Consequently, the performance
obligation is satisfied over time.
When one or more of the criteria above are not met, the nature of the licence is to transfer a right to access intellectual
property as it exists at the point at which the licence is granted. Because the intellectual property to which the customer
has rights to is static (i.e. is not affected by continuing involvement by the vendor), the right granted enables the
customer to direct the use of and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the intellectual property in its
form at the point at which the licence is granted to the customer. Therefore, the promise of a licence that transfers a right
is accounted for as a performance obligation satisfied at a point in time. The point in time cannot be before control of
the licence is transferred to the customer. This means that, if the vendor provides (or otherwise makes available) to the
customer an access code that is necessary to enable the customer to access or use licenced software, the vendor would
not recognise revenue until the access code has been made available, even though the licence period could have started at
an earlier date.
Example
A vendor (a music record label) licences a specified recording of a Beethoven symphony to a customer for a period of twoyears.
The customer has the right to use the recording in all types of advertising campaigns (including television, radio and online
media) in a specified country. The contract is non-cancellable and the customer is required to pay CU10,000permonth.
The nature of the vendors promise to its customer is to provide access to the recording in its condition as at the start of the
licence period. Consequently, the customers rights to the intellectual property are static and the vendors performance
obligation is satisfied at a point in time.
The vendor recognises all of the revenue (adjusted for a significant financing component, if appropriate) at the point at which
the customer is able to use, and obtain substantially all the benefits, of the licenced intellectual property.
When determining the type of licence that has been granted (intellectual property as it exists at any point during the
licence period vs. as it exists at the point at which the licence is granted), the following factors are disregarded:
Restrictions of time, geography, or use. This is because these restrictions define the attributes of the promised licence,
rather than define whether the vendor satisfies its performance obligation at a point in time or over time.
Guarantees provided by the vendor that it has a valid patent to intellectual property and that it will defend that patent
from unauthorised use. A promise to defend a patent right is not a performance obligation because it protects the
value of the vendors intellectual property asset and provides the customer with assurance that the licence transferred
meets the related contractual specifications.
TRG discussions
Intellectual property sales (Agenda Paper45; November2015)
The following topics related to licences of Intellectual Property (IP) were discussed:
The accounting for renewals of right-to-use licences (revenue accounted for at a point in time)
The accounting for licence restrictions in terms of time, geography or usage.
The most of the TRG members agreed that further clarification was needed in respect of how to account for licence restrictions
and whether time-based restrictions should be addressed differently from other restrictions.
The following examples were discussed:
Example 1
Renewal of a right-to use licence (revenue recognised at a point in time)
A licensor and a customer enter into a multi-year software arrangement. Before the end of the initially agreed licence
period, the licence is renewed and extended for an additional multi-year period. In this example the licence is a separate
The conclusion of the staff was that licensor should recognise revenue for the renewal when it is agreed by the parties
(before the end of the end of the initially agreed licencing period), because no additional performance is required from the
licensor.
The renewal was considered to be a change to an attribute of the licence that the customer controls.
Example 2
Right-to-use licence containing additional rights that the customer obtains over the contract period
In this example the licensor grants the customer the right to use its patent to manufacture a product for a multi-year period.
During the first x years covered by the contract the customer can only commercialise the product in a specific geographical
area. From that point in time onwards, the product can be commercialised in other regions as well.
The conclusion reached by the staff was that the customer grants two distinct licences in this case, because the right to
commercialise the product in one region is distinct from the right to commercialise it in other different region (two different
performance obligations). Therefore, licensor recognises revenues for the second performance obligation when the rights
are available to the customer.
Some TRG members did not agree with the staff views, due to a potential conflict with other guidance in the standard.
Amendments to Topic606
Some differences in comparison with IFRS have arisen from the FASB addressing licencing issues in its amendments to
Topic606.
The differences are as follows:
Determining the nature of the entitys promise in granting a licence of intellectual property:
The FASB decided to amend the criteria to determine the nature of a licence by requiring an entity to classify the intellectual
property underlying the licence as functional or symbolic based on whether the intellectual property has significant stand-
alone functionality. A licence to functional intellectual property is considered a right to use, while a licence to symbolic
intellectual property is considered a right to access the underlying intellectual property. The IASB has not made similar
amendments to the criteria in IFRS15 for the purposes of determining the nature of the licence.
Contractual restrictions in a licence and the identification of performance obligations:
Topic606 has been amended to clarify that the requirements about contractual restrictions of the nature described in
paragraph B62 do not replace the requirement for the entity to identify the number of licences promised in the contract.
The IASB has not made similar amendments to IFRS15.
Renewals of licences of intellectual property:
The FASB has included an additional example in the Standard to specify that an entity would not generally recognise
revenue from the transfer of a licence renewal until the beginning of the licence renewal period. The IASB has not made
similar amendments.
When to consider the nature of an entitys promise in granting a licence:
Unlike the IASB, the FASB has decided to make amendments that explicitly state that an entity considers the nature of its
promise in granting a licence when applying the general revenue recognition model to a single performance obligation that
includes a licence and other goods or services.
5.11. Sales-based or usage-based royalties

When the consideration takes the form of a sales-based or usage-based royalty for a licence of intellectual property the
vendor recognises revenue only when (or as) the later of the following events occurs:
The subsequent sale or usage occurs; and
The performance obligation to which some or all of the sales- or usage-based royalty has been allocated has been
satisfied (or partially satisfied).
The interaction of this restriction, and the requirement to consider stand-alone selling prices when allocating consideration
to multiple performance obligations in a contract, can lead to patterns of revenue recognition which differ from amounts
stated in contracts. This arises, for example, in cases where two or more licences over intellectual property that are to be
transferred to a customer at different times are included in a single overall contract, and the prices specified in the contract
do not reflect the stand-alone selling prices of the licences. The approach required by IFRS15 is designed to ensure that
the timing and profile of revenue recognition is not affected by what might be considered to be artificial price allocations in
contracts. See the example in section4.4 Allocation of variable consideration above.
BDO comment
The term royalty is not defined, and there are some cases where it is not clear whether a payment structure results in the sales
or usage based royalty exception being applied. Certain payment terms may be in-substance sales or usage based royalties,
even if the contract does not label the payments as royalties. In addition there are situations where the amount of consideration
depends on the customers subsequent sales or usage, even though the amount is not calculated on the basis of each sale or
usage (for example, milestone payments).
Example
An entity licences IP in exchange for a payment of CU10million if cumulative sales of the licencee of an item that makes
use of the IP exceed CU100million over a specified five year period.
An entity licences IP in exchange for stepped payments. This might be no royalty if the licencees sales of an item that
makes use of the IP are between CU1and10million, a royalty of 1% of sales between CU10 million and CU25million
and a royalty of 2% of sales above CU25million.
In our view, the exception does apply to these situations because the consideration is based on the sales to the customers
customer even though it might not be described as a royalty.
IFRS15.BC415 notes that:
The boards decided that for a licence of intellectual property for which the consideration is based on the customers
subsequent sales or usage, an entity should not recognise any revenue for the variable amounts until the uncertainty
is resolved (that is, when a customers subsequent sales or usage occurs).
This supports the Boards intention to apply the exception to consideration that relates to licences of IP and is based on
the customers subsequent sales or usage regardless of whether it is labelled as a royalty or whether it is structured so that
consideration accumulates evenly over all sales or usage.
Care should be taken, to ensure this view is not being applied to contract clauses that have no economic substance (i.e. the
payment is fixed and does not vary based on usage).
IFRS15.BC421 also notes that:
The boards also noted that because this is a specific requirement intended for only limited circumstances, entities
should not apply it by analogy to other types of promised goods or services or other types of variable consideration.
This clarifies that the board is making a distinction between consideration that is based on sales or usage, and other forms of
variable consideration (for example, an arrangement where the vendor may receive a performance based bonus).
BDO comment
IFRS15.B63 provides specific guidance on the recognition of revenue relating to sales or usage based royalties promised in
exchange for licences of intellectual property (IP). Revenue from such royalties can only be recognised once the subsequent
sale or usage and related performance have both occurred. This exception applies regardless of whether the underlying licence
provides a right to access to an entitys IP, or a right to use an entitys IP as it exists at a point in time.
However IFRS15.39 requires that performance obligations satisfied over time in accordance with paragraphs35-37 are
recognised by measuring the progress towards satisfaction of that performance obligation. The objective when measuring
progress is to depict an entitys performance in transferring control of goods or services promised to a customer (i.e. the
satisfaction of an entitys performance obligation).
As a result it would appear that if IFRS15.B63 is applied to an over time license, circumstances could arise where following
the legal form of the royalty could be interpreted as leading to a result that is inconsistent with measuring progress towards
satisfaction in accordance with IFRS15.39.
Example
A vendor enters into a non-cancellable licence agreement for a 5year period in exchange for a small amount of fixed
consideration plus a sales-based royalty. The entity applies the guidance in IFRS15.B52-B62 and determines that the licence
gives its customer the right to access the entitys intellectual property as it may exist from time to time throughout the
licence period. The entity estimates that:
The customer sales on which the royalty is based will be approximately equal for each of the 5years under licence; and
Any activities undertaken by the entity affecting its intellectual property will be performed on an even and continuous
basis throughout the licence period.
The licensee agrees to the following royalty rates: Year1: 10%, Year2: 8%, Year3: 6%, Year4: 4% Year5: 2%.
In the scenario presented above the question is, should the entity recognise revenue based on legal form of the royalty
contract (i.e. 10% in year1, 8% in year2, etc.) or should the pattern of revenue recognition depict its progress towards
satisfying the performance obligation?
IFRS15.B63 does not override IFRS15.39.
Following the legal form of the royalty might not appropriately depict progress in satisfying its performance obligation
for providing access to the entitys intellectual property as it may exist from time to time throughout the licence period.
Although IFRS15.B63 sets a limit on the maximum amount of revenue that might be recognised, this does not mean that
this maximum amount should always be recognised. The entity also needs to consider whether it is necessary to defer an
amount of revenue in order to comply with IFRS15.39. As a practical matter, in the scenario outlined above, this might be
accomplished by applying an average expected royalty rate.
IFRS15.B63 only overrides the variable consideration constraint guidance in IFRS15.56-59. It does not override the basic
principle of recognising 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.
TRG discussions
Sales-based and usage-based royalties in contracts with licences and goods and services other than licences
(AgendaPaper3; July2014)
Questions have arisen regarding how the royalty constraint would apply when an IP licence is offered with other goods or
services in a contract (e.g., software licences with post-contract customer support, franchise licences with training services,
biotechnology and pharmaceutical licences sold with research and development services or a promise to manufacture a drug
for the customer).
Views differ on whether the royalty constraint should apply to circumstances in which a royalty is (1)related to both a distinct
licence and non-licence goods or services that are distinct from the licence and (2)combined with other non-licence goods or
services in the contract (i.e., it is not distinct). In addition, certain stakeholders have questioned whether the royalty constraint
may partially apply to a sales- or usage-based royalty.
In its Clarifications to IFRS15 the IASB has decided that the royalties constraint applies to those arrangements for which the
licence is the predominant item to which the royalty relates. This is because users of financial statements are likely to view those
arrangements as licencing arrangements.
The FASB has added an example of when a licence is the predominant item to which a royalty relates. The IASB decided that no
further guidance on the term predominant is necessary because stakeholders feedback suggests that the term can be applied
in practice.
The IASB noted that an entity might conclude that a licence is the predominant item to which a sales-based or usage-
based royalty relates when there is more than one performance obligation. This conclusion might be reached regardless of
whether the entity concludes that the royalty can be allocated entirely to one performance obligation in accordance with the
requirements for allocating variable consideration in paragraphs84-85. The royalties constraint would also apply when a
single licence is not the predominant item to which the royalty relates, but the royalty predominantly relates to two or more
licences promised in a contract.
5.12. Repurchase agreements

A repurchase agreement arises when a vendor sells an asset to a customer and is either required, or has an option, to
repurchase the asset. The asset itself could be the same one as was originally sold to the customer, one which is substantially
the same, or another (larger) asset of which the one which was originally sold is a component.
When a vendor has an obligation or right to repurchase the asset, the customer is limited in its ability to direct the use of and
obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the asset. Therefore the customer does not obtain control of the asset.
This means that the vendor does not recognise revenue from a sale and instead, depending on the contractual terms, the
transaction is accounted for either as a lease or as a financing arrangement.
In determining whether a contract with a repurchase agreement gives rise to a lease or a financing arrangement, the vendor
compares the repurchase price of the asset with it original selling price, taking into account the effects of the time value of
money. When the repurchase price is lower than the original selling price of the asset the agreement is accounted for as lease
in accordance with IAS17/IFRS16 Leases. If the repurchase price is greater than or equal to the original selling price of the
asset than the contract gives rise to a financing arrangement; the vendor recognises a financial liability for any consideration
received from the customer and continues to recognise the asset.
When a vendor has an obligation to repurchase the asset at the customers request (the customer has a put option) the
accounting will depend on the relationship between the repurchase price of the asset and the original selling price of the
asset.
When the repurchase price of the asset is lower than the original selling price of the asset, the vendor considers whether the
customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise its right. If this is the case, the customer does not obtain control
of the asset, and the agreement is accounted for as a lease (unless the contract is part of a sale and leaseback transaction,
in which case the contract is accounted for as a financing arrangement). If the repurchase price is expected significantly to
exceed the market value of the asset at the date of exercise, it is assumed that the customer has a significant economic
incentive to exercise the put option (meaning that the customer has not obtained control of the asset).
If the customer does not have a significant economic incentive to exercise its option, the customer obtains control of the
asset and vendor records a sale of the product with a right of return.
The repurchase price of the asset might be equal to or greater than the original selling price and be more than the expected
market value of the asset at the date of exercise of the customers put option. In those cases, the customer does not obtain
control of the asset and the contract is instead accounted for as giving rise to a financing arrangement.
BDO comment
The effects of this part of IFRS15 may be significant in some industry sectors. For example, in many jurisdictions cars are sold
to customers with the right for the customer to require the vendor to repurchase the cars for a specified price after a period of
between two and four years. Careful consideration of the exercise price of these customer put options will be required, as well
as identifying the various parties to the contractual arrangements. This includes whether the vendor or an unrelated third party
finance company grants the put option and, if the latter, whether there are any associated contractual arrangements between
the vendor and that third party finance company.
Example
A manufacturer of industrial equipment(EntityX) enters into a sales contract with a customer, under which it sells
equipment with a production cost of CU500 to the customer for a sales price of CU750.
The customer has a contractual right to return the equipment to EntityX after 2years in exchange for a predetermined
amount of CU450 (the repurchase price). This repurchase price is the expected fair value of the equipment 2years after it
was sold.
If the expected useful life of the equipment is 5 years, the production cost of the equipment for EntityX minus
straight line depreciation (a nil residual value is estimated in this example) when it is returned after 2years would be
CU500*(3/5)=CU300.
When control of the equipment is transferred to the customer, EntityX recognises a liability for the customers right of
return and an asset reflecting EntityXs right to recover the equipment, in accordance with IFRS15.B25.
It is assumed that, at contract inception:
a) The customer does not have a significant economic incentive to exercise the right of return; and
b) Costs to sell the used equipment after twoyears are nil.
The issue in this scenario is the amount at which the right of return asset should be measured initially by EntityX.
The predetermined repurchase price (CU450), which is estimated to be fair value, is lower than the former carrying amount
(i.e. production cost of the equipment) therefore the lower amount (CU450) is used.
5.13. Consignment arrangements

A vendor may deliver a product to another party, such as a dealer or retailer, for sale to end customers. In these
circumstances, the vendor is required to assess whether the other party has obtained control of the product. If the other
party has not obtained control, the product may be held in a consignment arrangement. A vendor does not recognise
revenue on delivery of a product to another party which is held on consignment.
The following indicates the existence of a consignment arrangement:
The product is controlled by the vendor until a specified event occurs (e.g. sale of the product to a customer of the dealer
or retailer, or until a specified period expires)
The vendor is able to require the return of the product or transfer the product to a third party (e.g. transfer to another
dealer or retailer); and
The dealer or retailer does not have an unconditional obligation to pay for the product. However, there might be a
requirement for a deposit to be paid.
5.14. Bill-and-hold arrangements

Bill-and-hold arrangements involve the vendor invoicing a customer for a product but, instead of delivering it to the
customer, the vendor retains physical possession with the product being shipped or delivered to the customer at a later
date. A customer might request this type of arrangement if, for example, it does not have sufficient space of its own to
accommodate the product. The effect is that in addition to selling the product, the vendor provides a custodial service.
In determining the point at which it is appropriate to recognise revenue from a sale of the product, the vendor applies the
same control criteria as for any other sale (or performance obligation) to be recognised at a point in time. In addition, all of
the following criteria are required to be met:
The reason for the bill and hold arrangement must be substantive (for example, the arrangement might be requested by
the customer because of a lack of physical space to store the goods)
The product must be identified separately as belonging to the customer (that is, it cannot be used by the supplier to
satisfy other orders)
The product must currently be ready for physical transfer to the customer
The vendor cannot have the ability to use the product, or to direct it to another customer.
When a vendor recognises revenue for the sale of an asset on a bill-and-hold basis, it is also required to consider whether
there are any remaining performance obligations (e.g. for custodial services) to which a portion of the transaction price needs
to be allocated.
BDO comment
The guidance in IFRS15, and the effect of the IASBs proposed amendments, mean that some arrangements which have been
viewed as meeting the criteria in existing guidance may no longer qualify. In some cases, questions may arise about whether the
hold activity gives rise to a separate performance obligation to provide a storage facility. Careful consideration of the terms of
bill and hold arrangements will be needed to determine whether they meet the criteria in IFRS15, and in the identification of
performance obligations.
5.15. Customer acceptance

If a customer accepts an asset, this may indicate that control over the asset has passed to the customer. However,
contractual arrangements typically include clauses which enable the customer to require the vendor to take action if the
asset does not meet its contractually agreed upon specifications, and might allow the customer to cancel the contract.
If a vendor can demonstrate that an asset that has been transferred to a customer meets the contractually agreed upon
specifications, then customer acceptance is considered to be a formality that is not taken into account when determining
whether control over the asset has passed to the customer. This might apply if the sale is subject to an asset meeting certain
size and weight specifications; the vendor would be able to confirm whether these had been met. However, if revenue is
recognised in advance of receiving customer acceptance, the vendor is required to consider whether there are any other
performance obligations that have not yet been fulfilled.
If the vendor is not able to determine that the asset that has been transferred to the customer meets the contractually
agreed upon specifications, then control over the asset does not transfer to the customer until the vendor has received
the customers acceptance. In addition, if products are delivered to a customer for trial purposes, and the customer has no
commitment to pay any consideration until the trial period has ended, control of the asset does not pass to the customer
until the earlier of the point at which the customer accepts the asset or the trial period ends.
5.16. Treatment of onerous contracts

IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers does not contain specific guidance for onerous contracts, and instead refers
to IAS37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets (IFRS15.5).
IAS37 does not provide any guidance on how to combine or segment contracts, while IFRS15 provides significant guidance
on these topics.
In addition IAS37.68 specifies that onerous contracts need to be assessed taking into consideration economic benefits to be
received. IAS37 does not define these economic benefits, including contracts which contain variable consideration, while for
those contracts IFRS15.56-58 constrain the amount of variable consideration that can be recognised.
When assessing onerous contracts in accordance to IAS37, an initial question is whether that might arise is whether the unit
of account is the contract as a whole or the performance obligations identified through the application of IFRS15.
In our view, the unit of account is the contract as a whole and not the individual performance obligations. However, it is
possible that two or more contracts would need to be combined into a single unit of account.
The contract level unit of account is consistent with IFRS15, which clearly distinguishes between a contract and performance
obligations in paragraphs10and22. However if two or more contracts are entered into at or near the same time with the
same customer (or related parties of the customer) and they meet one of the following criteria from IFRS15.17, the contracts
should be combined for the purposes of both IFRS15 and IAS37:
The contracts are negotiated as a package with a single commercial objective; or
The amount of consideration to be paid in one contract depends on the price or performance of the other contract; or
The goods or services promised in the contracts are a single performance obligation.
An additional question, for the purposes of assessing onerous contracts in accordance with IAS37 is whether variable
payments should be subject to the variable consideration constraint in accordance with the requirements of IFRS15.
For this issue, there is no requirement in IAS37 that requires the revenue recognition constraint in IFRS15 to be applied
when a contract gives rise to variable consideration. IFRS15 does not apply to an assessment of onerous contracts (instead
referring to IAS37), meaning that for the purposes of IAS37 the definition of economic benefits to be received is interpreted
more widely. This means that for the purposes of accounting for an onerous contract in accordance with IAS37, all expected
revenues are included. This is in contrast to the constraint in IFRS15, which permits revenue from a contract which gives rise
to variable consideration to be recognised only when it is highly probable that there will not be a subsequent reversal in the
amount of revenue which has been recognised to date.
6. PRESENTATION
In accordance with the requirements of IAS1 Presentation of Financial Statements, a vendor presents or discloses revenue
from contracts with customers separately from the vendors other sources of revenue.
In its statement of financial position, a vendor is required separately to present contract assets, contract liabilities and
receivables due from customers. Alternative descriptions are permitted to be used for these line items.
When a vendor transfers control over goods or services to a customer before the customer pays consideration, the vendor
presents the contract as either a contract asset or a receivable. A contract asset is a vendors right to consideration in
exchange for goods or services that the vendor has transferred to a customer, when that right is conditional on the vendors
future performance. A receivable is a vendors unconditional right to consideration, and is accounted for in accordance with
IFRS9 Financial Instruments or IAS39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.
When a customer pays consideration in advance, or an amount of consideration is due contractually before a vendor
performs by transferring a good or service, the vendor presents the amount received in advance as a contract liability.
TRG discussions
Presentation of assets and liabilities (Agenda Paper7; October2014)
Although certain types of assets and liabilities result from revenue arrangements under existing GAAP, questions have arisen
regarding how contract assets and liabilities should be presented under the new revenue standard.
These questions include:
What is the appropriate unit of account? Some believe that, because of the way each term is entitled, presentation is
determined at the contract level. However, others think that the unit of account should be at the level of performance
obligations within contracts
For individual contracts with both contract assets and contract liabilities, should contract assets and liabilities for the
individual contracts be presented on a gross or net basis?
For entities that have combined revenue contracts with a customer (because they have met the criteria to do so), should
contract assets and liabilities be presented on a separate or combined basis?
May an entity offset other assets and liabilities against contract assets and liabilities? If so, should an entity apply the
guidance in existing accounting literature?
TRG members generally agreed that:
The contract, and not individual performance obligations, is the appropriate unit of account for presenting contract assets
and liabilities
Contract assets or liabilities are presented for each contract on a net basis
For contracts that meet the criteria for combination under the new revenue standard, a contract asset or liability would be
presented for the combined contract.
One board member noted that netting of contract assets and liabilities reflects an entitys net position for the remaining rights
and obligations under the contract and therefore is different from offsetting. Further, TRG members generally agreed that
entities should look to existing guidance to determine whether they have the right of offset.
7. DISCLOSURES
IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers includes an overall disclosure objective, which is for the disclosures to include
sufficient information to enable users of financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty
of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. This is accompanied by comprehensive disclosure
requirements about a vendors:
Contracts with customers
Significant judgements, and changes in the judgements, made in applying IFRS15 to those contracts
Assets recognised in respect of costs of obtaining contracts, and in fulfilling contracts.
Consistent with the IASBs current Disclosure Initiative project, IFRS15 notes specifically that consideration is to be given to
the level of detail that is necessary to satisfy the disclosure objective, and to the emphasis to be placed on each disclosure
requirement. The purpose is to ensure that the information that users will find useful is not obscured by a large amount of
insignificant detail, with items with sufficiently different characteristics being disaggregated and presented separately.
BDO comment
Linkage between determining performance obligations and segment disclosures
IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers requires an entity to determine whether a good or service is distinct.
An entitys financial statements will also typically include disclosures made in accordance with the requirements of
IFRS8Operating Segments, with those disclosures being based on internal management reporting information.
The IFRS8 disclosures may include revenues for each product or service, or group of similar products and services, which
are disaggregated to a lower level than the distinct performance obligations that are identified by IFRS15.27. The question
that might arise in such cases would be whether an entity needs to use this lower level of disaggregation when identifying
performance obligations.
In our view this is not the case because segmental reporting disclosures are based on information provided to management,
which may (or may not) be prepared on the basis of amounts reported in accordance with IFRS. Although disclosures in the
segmental reporting note may be based on the same level of aggregation and disaggregation as separate performance
obligations determined in accordance with IFRS15.27, they will not always be the same.
BDO comment
ESMA Statement on disclosures to be made in advance of IFRS 15s effective date
For those public entities applying IFRSs as adopted by theEU, on 20July2016 the European Securities and Markets Authority
(ESMA) published a Public Statement to promote transparency of disclosures on the implementation and effects of IFRS15, and
on its consistent application. Disclosures about the effects of IFRS15 are also included in ESMAs public statement, published on
28October2016, on European common enforcement priorities for 2016financial statements.
When an issuer expects that the application of IFRS15 will have a significant impact on its financial statements, the following
information should be provided in the 2016financial statements:
Detailed description and explanation on how key IFRS15 concepts will be implemented along the different revenue streams
(identification of performance obligations, determination and allocation of the transaction price, how performance
obligations are satisfied). Where relevant, highlight the differences to the current approaches;
Explanation of the timeline for implementing IFRS15, including expected use of any of the transition practical expedients;
If known or reasonably estimable, quantification of the possible impact of the application of IFRS15 (amount or timing of
revenue recognition).
When quantitative information is not disclosed because it is unknown or not reasonably estimable, additional qualitative
information is required to enable users of financial statements to understand the magnitude of the expected impact.
8. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITION
IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers applies to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1January2018.
Earlier application is permitted.
The date of initial application is the start of the reporting period in which a vendor first applies IFRS15. IFRS15 is applied
retrospectively either to:
Each prior period presented in the financial statements in accordance with IAS8 Accounting Policies, Changes in
Accounting Estimates and Errors with a choice of three practical; expedients, or
The current period with a cumulative effect adjustment.
The four practical expedients are:
For completed contracts, contracts that began and ended within the same annual reporting period do not need to be
restated;
For completed contracts that have variable consideration, the transaction price at the date the contract was completed
can be used, instead of estimating variable consideration amounts in comparative reporting periods;
For contracts that were modified before the beginning of the earliest period presented an entity shall reflect the
aggregate effect of all modifications that occur before the beginning of the earliest period presented when identifying
satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations, determining the transaction price and allocating the transaction price
to performance obligations; and
For all reporting periods presented before the date of initial application, disclosure is not required of the amount of the
transaction price allocated to remaining performance obligations, and an explanation of when that amount was expected
to be recognised as revenue.
TRG discussions
Transition issues (Agenda Paper42; July2015)
The new revenue standard only applies to contracts that are not completed as of the adoption date (under the modified
retrospective transition method).
A completed contract is a contract for which the entity has transferred all of the goods or services to the customer before the
application of the new standard.
The TRG discussions covered the following two issues regarding completed contracts at transition:
How to determine whether a contract is complete for transition purposes
How to account for completed contracts at and after adoption of the new standard.
Although a contract might appear to be complete according to the definition set in the standard, there may be unrecognised
revenue or accruals related to the contract.
TRG members had differing views about how to address these issues. The staff agreed to provide more examples and hold
further discussions in coming meetings.
Careful consideration will be needed of the transition approach to be followed. This is because, for a contract which is in
progress in the comparative and current reporting periods when IFRS15 is adopted, depending on the approach adopted
some revenue might be recognised in profit or loss in more than one period, and some might not be recognised at all. The
following example illustrates the potential effect.
Example
A vendor has a single four year contract which runs from 1January2015 to 31December2018. The total consideration
receivable is fixed at CU2,000,000 and, under current IFRSs, is being recognised over that four year period as follows:
2015: CU800,000
2016: CU400,000
2017: CU400,000
2018: CU400,000
Under IFRS15, revenue would have been recognised evenly over the four year period (CU500,000 in each year)
Under each of the transition options, the effect would be:
2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

2017+2018
Existing IFRS 800 400 400 400 800
IFRS15
Retrospective (no practical expedients)
Revenue 500 500 1,000
Opening equity adjustment (200) (200)
Cumulative effect adjustment

Revenue 400 500 900
Equity adjustment (100) (100)
Retrospective equity adjustment

The retrospective equity adjustment of200 is calculated as the difference as at 1January2017 between the cumulative
amount of revenue recognised in accordance with existing IFRS (1,200, being800 in2015 and 400in2016) and the
amount that would have been recognised in accordance with IFRS15 (1,000, being500 in each of 2015and2016).
Cumulative effect adjustment

The cumulative effect adjustment of100 is calculated as the difference as at 1January2018 between the cumulative
amount of revenue recognised in accordance with existing IFRS (1,600, being800 in2015and 400 in each of
2016and2017) and the amount that would have been recognised in accordance with IFRS15(1,500).
TRG discussions and Clarifications to IFRS15

Evaluating contract modifications prior to the date of initial application (Agenda Paper24; January2015)
Given the high volume and long duration of customer contracts for some entities that are frequently modified, stakeholders
have expressed concerns that applying the guidance will be challenging, if not impracticable, regardless of the transition
method an entity applies. Furthermore, some believe that the costs may exceed the benefits because of the limited usefulness
in applying the contract modification guidance to periods before the date of initial application. Accordingly, some stakeholders
requested that the FASB and IASB add practical expedients to the standards contract modification guidance to address the
issue.
TRG members generally agreed that assessing contract modifications for transition under the new revenue standard would
be onerous and perhaps impracticable. Some TRG members challenged whether it would be impracticable, noting that
impracticability is a high threshold under existing guidance. TRG members were supportive of ways to simplify the treatment of
contract modifications for transition, particularly for contracts that may have been modified numerous times over many years.
As a result, amendments have been made in order to simplify the approach on transition for these, and other similar, contracts.
Contracts modified before the beginning of the earliest period presented require no retrospective restatement for the
modifications made. Instead, hindsight can be used with the aggregate effect of all modifications to be reflected when:
Identifying the satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations;
Determining the transaction price; and
Allocating the transaction price to the satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations.
Completed contracts
The IASB added a further practical expedient, which is that contracts that are completed contracts at the beginning of the
earliest period presented do not need to be restated in accordance with IFRS15. A completed contract is one for which the
seller has fully performed in accordance with revenue recognition requirements in effect before the date of initial application.
Ifthe practical expedient is followed, then for those contracts revenue will continue to be recognised in accordance with
previous guidance.
In contrast, the FASB amended the definition of a completed contract to be one for which all or substantially all of the revenue
was recognised in accordance with the revenue guidance that was in effect before the date of initial application of Topic606.
9. COMPARISON OF IFRS15 AND TOPIC606
As mentioned in section1. Introduction, in IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and Topic606, issued in
May2014, the boards achieved their goal of reaching the same conclusions on all significant requirements for the accounting
for revenue from contracts with customers.
However, there are some minor differences in the standards as issued in May2014:
(a) Collectability threshold
While under IFRS the term probable means more likely than not, under USGAAP it means likely. Although there is a
difference in the wording, it is designed so that the accounting outcome will be the same.
(b) Interim disclosure requirements
Interim disclosures requirements under IAS34 include only disaggregated revenue. Under USGAAP, disclosures on
disaggregated revenue, contract balances, and remaining performance obligations are required.
(c) Early application and effective date
IFRS15 is applicable for annual periods beginning on or after 1January2018 with early application permitted. On the
other hand, Topic606 is applicable for annual periods beginning after 15December2017 for public business entities
and certain not-for-profit entities with earlier adoption permitted (but only for annual periods beginning on or after
15December2016). A one year deferral is available for all other entities.
(d) Impairment loss reversal
Under USGAAP the reversal of previously impaired contract acquisition and contract fulfillment costs for a change in
facts and circumstances is prohibited. Under IFRS the reversal is required but it is limited to the carrying amount, net of
amortisation, that would have been determined if no impairment loss had been recognised.
(e) Non-public entity requirements
USGAAP permits some relief on disclosures for entities other than public business entities and certain not-for-profit
entities. This relief is not applicable under IFRS.
(f) Scope
Insurance contracts
Topic606 excludes from its scope insurance contracts for entities that apply current USinsurance industry guidance.
However it does not exclude insurance contracts issued by entities that do not follow the insurance industry guidance.
IFRS15 excludes from its scope all insurance contracts within the scope of IFRS4 Insurance Contracts.
Guarantees
Topic606 excludes guarantees from its scope. IFRS15 does not specifically exclude guarantees from its scope,
however it does exclude financial instruments and (as noted above) insurance contracts within the scope of IFRS4,
which would include financial guarantee contracts.
Credit card fees
USGAAP has specific guidance on the accounting for credit card fees. Under IFRS an entity has to determine first
whether these fees are within the scope of IFRS9 Financial Instruments. If not, IFRS15 would be applicable.
Gaming transactions
USGAAP has specific guidance on the accounting for gaming transactions. Under IFRS fixed-odds wagering, such as
sports betting contracts, are considered to be derivative contracts and thus are not within the scope of IFRS15.
(g) Illustrative examples

Illustrative examples accompany but are not part of IFRS15 and therefore they are not authoritative. In contrast, the
illustrative examples in Topic606 are part of the standard and thus authoritative.
Additionally, the IASBs Clarifications to IFRS15 differ in certain respects from the amendments to Topic606 issued by
theFASB.
The differences arisen after the issue of IASBs clarification are the following:
(h) Revenue recognition for contracts with customers that do not meet the Step1 criteria
The FASB decided to amend Topic606 to add an event in which an entity recognises any consideration received as
revenue when:
i. The entity has transferred control of the goods or services to which the consideration received relates;
ii. The entity has stopped transferring additional goods or services and has no obligation to transfer additional goods or
services; and
iii. The consideration received from the customer is non-refundable. The IASB did not make a similar amendment.
However, this should not result in a significant difference in outcomes.
(i) Promised goods or services that are immaterial within the context of the contract
The FASB decided to amend the Standard to clarify that an entity is not required to assess whether promised goods or
services are performance obligations if they are immaterial within the context of the contract with the customer. The
IASB did not make a similar amendment. However, this should not result in a significant difference in outcomes.
(j) Shipping and handling activities
In accordance with amendment made to Topic606, an entity is permitted (as an accounting policy choice) to account for
shipping and handling activities that occur after the customer has obtained control of a good as fulfilment activities. The
IASB did not make a similar amendment, meaning that under IFRS it will be necessary to assess whether shipping and
handling that occur after a customer has obtained control of a good is a distinct performance obligation.
(k) Presentation of sales taxes
FASB decided to permit entities an accounting policy choice to exclude from the measurement of the transaction price all
taxes assessed by a governmental authority that are both imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing
transaction and collected from customers (for example: sales taxes, use taxes, VAT etc.). The IASB decided not to provide
a similar accounting policy choice in IFRS15, and so under IFRS it will be necessary for an entity to assess whether it is
acting as principal or agent with regard to sales taxes collected.
(l) Non-cash consideration
The FASB decided to amend the Standard to require non-cash consideration to be measured at its fair value at contract
inception. It was also specified that the constraint on variable consideration applies only to variability in the fair value
of the non-cash consideration that arises for reasons other than the form of the consideration. The IASB did not make
similar amendments.
(m) Licensing
Determining the nature of the entitys promise in granting a licence of intellectual property:
The FASB decided to amend the criteria to determine the nature of a licence by requiring an entity to classify the
intellectual property underlying the licence as functional or symbolic based on whether the intellectual property has
significant stand-alone functionality. A licence to functional intellectual property is considered a right to use, while a
licence to symbolic intellectual property is considered a right to access the underlying intellectual property. The IASB
did not amend the criteria in IFRS15 to distinguish between functional and symbolic intellectual property. Under IFRS,
a licence provides a right to access if all of the following criteria are met:
The entity will undertake activities that significantly affect the intellectual property;
The rights granted by the licence directly expose the customer to any positive or negative effects of the entitys
activities; and
Those activities do not result in the transfer of a good or service to the customer as those activities occur.
Differences in outcome will arise due to the different criteria.
Contractual restrictions in a licence and the identification of performance obligations:
Topic606 was amended to clarify that the requirements about contractual restrictions of the nature described in
paragraph B62 do not replace the requirement for the entity to identify the number of licences promised in the
contract. The IASB did not make similar amendments to IFRS15. However, this should not result in a significant
difference in outcomes.
Renewals of licences of intellectual property:
The FASB included an additional example in the Standard to specify that an entity would not generally recognise
revenue from the transfer of a licence renewal until the beginning of the licence renewal period. The IASB did not
make similar amendments, and so differences in the timing of revenue recognition may arise.
When to consider the nature of an entitys promise in granting a licence:
Unlike the IASB, the FASB decided to make amendments that explicitly state that an entity considers the nature of its
promise in granting a licence when applying the general revenue recognition model to a single performance obligation
that includes a licence and other goods or services.
(n) Completed contracts
The definition of a completed contract in Topic606 was amended. A completed contract is a contract for which all (or
substantially all) of the revenue was recognised in accordance with the previous revenue Standards. The IASB did not
make a similar amendment.
On the other hand, the IASB added a practical expedient to allow an entity applying IFRS15 in accordance with paragraph
C3(a) not to restate contracts that are completed contracts at the beginning of the earliest period presented. The FASB
did not provide this practical expedient.
(o) Date of application of the contract modifications practical expedient

For entities applying Topic606, for the equivalent guidance to paragraph C3(b) of IFRS15, the FASB decided that the
entity should apply the practical expedient at the date of initial application. However, the IASB decided that an entity
may apply the practical expedient either (a) at the beginning of the earliest period presented; or (b) at the date of initial
application.
(p) In-substance sales of intellectual property
The exception for sales and usage based royalties does not apply to outright sales of intellectual property. The basis to
conclusions to Topic606 states that an entity should not determine whether a licence to intellectual property is an in
substance sale of that intellectual property in deciding whether or not the royalties exception applies. The wording in the
basis to conclusions of IFRS15 is not as explicit, meaning that certain sales and usage based arrangements for intellectual
property may be accounted for as in substance sales under IFRS.
10. COMPARISON OF IFRS15 AND CURRENT

REVENUE STANDARDS
IAS18 Revenue bases revenue recognition around an analysis of the transfer of risks and rewards. In contrast, under
IFRS15Revenue from Contracts with Customers revenue is recognised by a vendor when control over the goods or services is
transferred to the customer.
There are other differences between the current (IAS18, IAS11 Construction Contracts, IFRIC13 Customer Loyalty
Programmes, IFRIC15 Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate, IFRIC18 Transfers of Assets from Customers, SIC31
Barter Transactions Involving Advertising Services) and the new revenue standard regarding scope, disclosures in financial
statements and the presentation of assets and liabilities related to contracts.
The table below sets out a summary of the main differences between the new standard and current revenue standards:
Scope Scope exemptions

The new standard does not include scope exemptions regarding changes in the
fair value of biological assets, the initial recognition of agricultural produce, the
extraction of mineral ores and changes in the value of other current assets.
Nevertheless, these items are out of the scope of IFRS15 because they do not
arise from contracts with customers.
Dividends
IFRS15 does not include guidance on the accounting for dividend income.
Instead, guidance that is consistent with existing requirements has been
incorporated into the financial instruments standards.
Financial services fees
Illustrative examples addressing financial services fees have been transferred to
the financial instruments standards.
Step 1: Identify the contract Combination of contracts

IAS11 requires an entity to consider combining a group of contracts as a single
contract when the contracts are performed concurrently or in a continuous
sequence. IFRS15 states that contracts are combined when the goods or services
promised in the contract are a single performance obligation.
Step 2: Identify separate Separate components in the contract

performance obligations (POs)
Unlike current standards, IFRS15 introduces comprehensive guidance on
inthe contract
identifying separate components. This might result in combining or separating
goods or services more frequently than currently.
Step 3: Determine the transaction Variable consideration

price after contract inception
Under current IFRS an entity recognises revenue only if it can estimate
the amount reliably (uncertainty over the outcome may preclude revenue
recognition). In IFRS15 the constraint sets a ceiling (limiting rather than
precluding revenue recognition).
Advance payments
Current IFRS does not consider whether an entity adjusts consideration for a
financing component when payment is received in advance. IFRS15 requires an
adjustment to be made for significant financing components.
Noncash consideration measurement
Under current IFRS, when the fair value of the goods or services received cannot
be measured reliably, the revenue is measured at the fair value of the goods
given up. Under the new standard, the entity measures the transaction price
at the stand-alone selling price of the goods or services transferred if it cannot
reasonably estimate the fair value of the non-cash consideration.
Additionally, the threshold for using the fair value of the noncash consideration
as the measurement basis is that the entity can reliably measure (current IFRS)
the fair value, rather than reasonably estimate the amount (IFRS15).
Barter transactions
SIC31 sets out guidance to be applied for barter transactions involving
advertising services. IFRS15 does not contain any specific guidance on the
accounting for barter transactions. Thus, the general principles for measuring
consideration apply.
Transfer of assets from customers
IFRIC18 contains guidance on transfers of property, plant and equipment
received from customers. IFRS15 does not contain specific guidance. If an entity
recognises revenue on the transfer it applies the general requirements in IFRS15
and measures revenue at the fair value of the item transferred to the customer.
Customer incentives
Customer incentives include cash incentives, discounts, volume rebates, free
or discounted goods or services, customer loyalty programmes, loyalty cards
and vouchers. Other than IFRIC13 which covers customer loyalty programmes,
existing IFRSs contain limited guidance for these transactions. The new standard
is designed to reduce diversity in practice with specific accounting requirements
(reduction in revenue, expense, separate deliverable).
Step 4: Allocate the transaction Allocation of consideration

price to the POs
IFRS15 introduces detailed guidance applicable to all contracts with customers.
Current standards do not contain any guidance in this respect, except for several
recent interpretations (service concession arrangements, customer loyalty
programs, agreements for the sale of real estate).
Observable inputs
The new standard emphasises the use of available market inputs when allocating
the transaction price to performance obligations.
Residual approach
Unlike current guidance, IFRS15 requires specific conditions to be met for an
entity to use the residual approach when there are multiple deliverables that are
accounted for separately.
Discounts
Specific guidance has been introduced by the new revenue standard regarding
how discounts must be allocated. Discounts are allocated proportionately to all
performance obligations in a contract, unless there is observable evidence that
the discount relates to only one or more, but not all, performance obligations
in the contract. The proportionate allocation of discounts links to the allocation
of the transaction price to performance obligations on the basis of stand-alone
selling prices.
Variable consideration allocation
There is no specific guidance in current IFRS. In contrast, IFRS15 provides
specific guidance on variable consideration together with a constraint on
revenue recognition and an exception for some sales- or usage-based royalties.
Additionally, the new standard requires alternative approaches in specific
circumstances.
Reallocation of revenue
Unlike in the current standards, if some of the performance obligations to which
the transaction price was initially allocated have already been satisfied when
the change in transaction price takes place, then this can result in a cumulative
adjustment to the amount of revenue recognised to date (including revenue on
completed performance obligations).
Step 5: Recognise revenue when Risk and reward approach versus transfer of control
each PO is satisfied
Under IAS18 revenue is recognised when the entity has transferred to the
buyer the significant risks and rewards of ownership. Under an IFRS15 approach
revenue is recognised when control of goods or services is transferred to the
customer.
Over time recognition
IFRS15 introduces new criteria to determine when revenue should be recognised
over time. Thus, some contracts that are currently accounted for under the
percentage-of-completion method may now require revenue to be recognised
on contract completion. However, for other contracts over-time recognition may
be required under the new model.
Under current IFRS revenue is recognised over time if:
a) The contract is a construction contract in the scope of IAS11; or
b) The contract is for the sales of goods and the conditions for revenue
recognition are met progressively; or
c) The contract is for the rendering of services.
Real estate arrangements
The new standard replaces IFRIC15. The difficulty in determining when control
of real estate is transferred to the customer makes this area challenging in
practice, particularly for certain multi-unit residential developments.
Stage of completion
Under IAS11 an entity is required to use a method for estimating the stage
of completion of work that reliably measures the work performed. When
determining the amount of revenue to be recognised in accordance with IFRS15
an output measure is the most faithful depiction of an entitys performance
because it directly measures the value of the good or services transferred to
the customer. An input method would be appropriate if it would be less costly
and would provide a reasonable basis for measuring progress. The new standard
includes additional guidance that notes that if an entitys performance has
produced a material amount of work in progress or finished goods that are
controlled by the customer, then output methods (units-of-delivery or units-of-
production) may not be appropriate.
Uninstalled materials
Under IAS11 materials that have not yet been installed are often (but not
always) excluded from contract costs when determining the stage of completion
of a contract. Recognising revenue on uninstalled materials at a zero percent
profit margin under IFRS15 may result in changes to an entitys profit
recognition profile.
Step 5: Recognise revenue when Outcome estimation at early stages

each PO is satisfied
IAS11 states that if it is probable that the total contract costs will exceed the
(continued) total contract revenue, then any expected excess is recognised as an expense
immediately. However, IFRS15 does not include guidance on the accounting for
losses. Therefore, IAS37 is applicable in those cases in order to assess whether
the contract is onerous and to measure the provision, if necessary.
Repurchase arrangements
Current IFRSs are focused on the transfer of risk and rewards of ownership to the
buyer. IFRS15 includes specific guidance and focuses on whether the entity has
transferred control of a good or service.
Bill and hold
To recognise revenue on a bill and hold basis under current IFRS the vendor is
required to apply its usual payment terms. Another condition under current IFRS
is that it has to be probable that the delivery will be made. This is not explicitly
stated in the new standard. However, if it is not probable that the delivery will
be made, then it is possible that the contract will not exist for the purpose of
applying the requirements of the new standard, or that the reason for the bill
and hold arrangement will be deemed not to be substantive.
Factors that are taken into consideration under current standard to determine
whether risks and rewards have been transferred are, for example, if the entity
pays for the cost of storage, shipment or insurance on the goods. As mentioned
before, IFRS15 is focused on transfer of control, therefore these factors are
not as relevant under the new standard. Under IFRS15 for a customer to have
obtained control of a product in a bill-and-hold arrangement all the following
criteria must be met: a) the reason for the arrangement must be substantive; b)
the product must be identified separately as belonging to the customer; and c)
the entity cannot have the ability to use the product or to direct it to another
customer.
Customers acceptance
Under IAS18 revenue from goods that are shipped subject to customers
acceptance is recognised when the customer accepts the delivery. Under the
new standard revenue may be recognised if customer acceptance is a formality
that does not affect the determination of whether control of a good or service
has been transferred.
Contract costs Costs to obtain a contract

Current IFRSs do not include specific guidance on the accounting for the costs
to obtain a contract with a customer. In fact, it is only in limited circumstances
that direct and incremental recoverable costs to obtain an identifiable contract
may qualify for recognition as an intangible asset (IAS38). For contracts within
the scope of IAS11, costs related directly to the contract with the customer and
incurred in securing it are included as part of the contract costs only if following
criteria are met: they can be separately identified, reliably measured and it is
probable that the contract will be obtained. Under IFRS15 incremental costs of
obtaining a contract are those costs incurred in obtaining a contract that would
not have been incurred had that individual contract not been obtained. This is
restrictive, as any ongoing costs of operating the business will be expensed as
incurred.
Costs to fulfil a contract
The new guidance on costs to fulfil a contract will be relevant for contracts that
are currently being accounted for using the percentage of completion method.
IFRS15 requires an entity to capitalise the costs of fulfilling an anticipated
contract if certain conditions are met. This is similar to the notion in IAS11 that
costs incurred before a contract is obtained are recognised as contract costs if it
is probable that the contract will be obtained.
Contract modifications Contract modifications

The specific guidance in IAS11 regarding the accounting for claims and variations
in a construction contract does not exist in the new standard. Under IFRS15
claims and variations in construction contracts are accounted for according to
the general (and more prescriptive) guidance on contract modifications. The
application of the requirements for variable consideration to some contract
modifications may change the timing of revenue recognition from claims and
variations.
Licensing Licence of IP and other components in a contract

Under current guidance a transaction involving a transfer of rights to IP is subject
to the general guidance on combining and segmenting contracts and identifying
separate components within a contract. The new standard is more detailed in
the identification of distinct goods or services and will reduce the inconsistency
in practice.
Pattern of revenue recognition
Under IAS18 license fees and royalties are recognised based on the substance of
the agreement.
Revenue related to fees and royalties are recognised:
a) Over the life of the agreement on a straight line basis; or
b) When the conditions for the sale of a good are met. This is the approach
when the entity assigns rights for fixed consideration and has no remaining
obligations to perform and the licensee is able to exploit the rights freely.
Although this approach is similar to over time and point in time recognition
under IFRS15, it is possible that revenue recognition will be accelerated or
deferred compared with IAS18.
Substance of the agreement
Under current IFRSs entities may consider that, by analogy, an appropriate
accounting policy for licenses is the guidance on leases. In contrast, IFRS15
contains specific guidance for licences.
Contingent licence fee or royalty
Under IAS18 if a license fee or royalty is contingent on a future event, revenue is
recognised only if it is probable that the fee or royalty will be received (normally,
when the future event occurs). Although the sales or usage based royalty
exception in IFRS15 may not lead to significant changes in practice, the new
standard prohibits the recognition of a sales or usage based royalty until the sale
or usage occurs, even if the sale or usage is probable.
Sales outside the entitys Sale or transfer of an item of property, plant and equipment, intangible
ordinaryactivities asset or investment property
a) Timing of derecognition: the date of disposal of these types of assets is
currently determined by the guidance in IAS18 regarding the conditions for
recognising a sale of goods, i.e. a risk and reward test must be applied. The
new control based model may result in a change in the date of disposal if risks
and rewards are transferred at a different date from control (for example,
when variable payments exist). The new model based on control might have
an effect in the real estate industry.
b) Gain or loss on disposal:
IAS18: the consideration received or receivable is measured at fair value;
IFRS15: the guidance on the transaction price is applied, including variable
consideration and the constraint. This may result in a decrease in any gain
recognised initially, particularly if the constraint applies.
Other issues Warranties

A contract with a customer may contain a warranty clause. The accounting
approach might be different under the new standard.
a) IAS18: a standard warranty clause does not result in the entity retaining
significant risks and therefore does not preclude revenue recognition at the
date of the sale of the product. The entity typically recognises a warranty
provision in accordance with IAS37 for the best estimate of the costs to be
incurred for repairing or replacing the defective products. On the other hand,
an abnormal warranty obligation could indicate that the significant risks and
rewards of ownership have not been transferred to the customer and that
revenue should be deferred.
b) IFRS15: the new standard does not contemplate that a warranty clause
would preclude the recognition of all of the revenue linked to the sale of the
product. However, a warranty that goes beyond assurance that a good or
service complies with agreed upon specifications is accounted for as separate
components and revenue is deferred.
Agent or principal
Although the concept of principal and agent is already contemplated in the
current standard, the move from a risk and reward model to a transfer of control
based model implies that the indicators to assess whether and entity is acting as
principal or agent may be different.
Under IAS18 an entity is a principal in the transaction when it has exposure
to the significant risks and rewards associated with the sale of goods or the
rendering of services.
Other issues Customer loyalty programs

(continued) Under current IFRS an entity can choose the method to allocate the
consideration between the sales transaction and the award credits. The residual
method to estimate the stand-alone selling price of award credits is widely
applied. Under IFRS15 the residual approach can be applied but only in certain
cases.
Breakage
Although it is not explicitly dealt with in IAS18, it is common to recognise
revenue for breakage if the amount is non-refundable and the likelihood of the
customer requiring the entity to fulfil its performance obligation is remote. The
new standard might imply changes in the timing of revenue recognition.
Non-refundable upfront fees
Under current IFRS any initial or entrance fee may be recognised as revenue
when there is no significant uncertainty over its collection and the entity has no
further obligation to perform any continuing services (according to the timing,
nature and value of the benefits provided).
Under IFRS15 an entity needs to assess whether a non-refundable up-front fee
relates to a specific good or service transferred to the customer and recognise
revenue in a way that reflects properly how the control is transferred. This may
result in the deferral of revenue recognition.
Onerous contracts
Under current guidance onerous contracts are within the scope of the following
standards:
a) IAS37: a provision must be recognised when the unavoidable costs of
meeting the obligations under a contract exceed the economic benefits to be
received.
b) IAS11: expected losses on construction contracts have to be recognised
immediately.
IFRS15 does not contain specific guidance on onerous contracts and therefore
the guidance on IAS11 regarding expected losses on construction contracts has
been withdrawn. Instead, onerous contracts are dealt with wholly in IAS37.
Presentation Consistent presentation approach

Under current IFRS there is some diversity in practice when presenting assets
and liabilities related to contracts with customers where the percentage of
completion method is being applied. Amounts due to or from customers is
presented in different ways (assets, liabilities, deferred income, payments
received in advance or in account).
IFRS15 contains a single, more systematic approach to presentation in the
statement of financial position and does not distinguish between different types
of contracts with customers.
Disclosures
The IFRS15 disclosures requirements are significantly more extensive than under
current standards.
CONTACT
For further information about how BDO can assist you and your organisation,
please get in touch with one of our key contacts listed below.
Alternatively, please visit
www.bdointernational.com/Services/Audit/IFRS/IFRS Country Leaders
where you can find full lists of regional and country contacts.
EUROPE
Anne Catherine Farlay France annecatherine.farlay@bdo.fr
Jens Freiberg Germany jens.freiberg@bdo.de
Teresa Morahan Ireland tmorahan@bdo.ie
Ehud Greenberg Israel ehudg@bdo.co.il
Ruud Vergoossen Netherlands ruud.vergoossen@bdo.nl
Reidar Jensen Norway reidar.jensen@bdo.no
Maria Sukonkina Russia m.sukonkina@bdo.ru
Ren Krgel Switzerland rene.kruegel@bdo.ch
Brian Creighton United Kingdom brian.creighton@bdo.co.uk
ASIA PACIFIC
Wayne Basford Australia wayne.basford@bdo.com.au
Zheng Xian Hong China zheng.xianhong@bdo.com.cn
Fanny Hsiang Hong Kong fannyhsiang@bdo.com.hk
Khoon Yeow Tan Malaysia tanky@bdo.my
LATIN AMERICA
Mara Eugenia Segura Argentina msegura@bdoargentina.com
Luis Pierrend Peru lpierrend@bdo.com.pe
Ernesto Bartesaghi Uruguay ebartesaghi@bdo.com.uy
NORTH AMERICA & CARIBBEAN

Armand Capisciolto Canada acapisciolto@bdo.ca
Wendy Hambleton USA whambleton@bdo.com
MIDDLE EAST
Arshad Gadit Bahrain arshad.gadit@bdo.bh
Antoine Gholam Lebanon agholam@bdo-lb.com
SUB SAHARAN AFRICA

Nigel Griffith South Africa ngriffith@bdo.co.za
This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations
and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact your respective BDO member firm to discuss
these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BVBA, BDO International Limited and/or BDO member firms, nor
their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in
this publication or for any decision based on it.
Service provision within the international BDO network of independent member firms (the BDO network) in connection with IFRS (comprising International Financial Reporting Standards,
International Accounting Standards, and Interpretations developed by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and the former Standing Interpretations Committee), and other documents, as issued by
the International Accounting Standards Board, is provided by BDO IFR Advisory Limited, a UK registered company limited by guarantee. Service provision within the BDO network is co-ordinated
by Brussels Worldwide Services BVBA, a limited liability company incorporated in Belgium with its statutory seat in Zaventem.
Each of BDO International Limited (the governing entity of the BDO network), Brussels Worldwide Services BVBA, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and the member firms is a separate legal entity and
has no liability for another such entitys acts or omissions. Nothing in the arrangements or rules of the BDO network shall constitute or imply an agency relationship or a partnership between BDO
International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BVBA, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and/or the member firms of the BDO network.
BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO member firms.
2016 BDO IFR Advisory Limited, a UK registered company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
www.bdo.global 1611-03

Ifrs15 - Bdo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ifrs15 - Bdo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ifrs15 - Bdo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IFRS IN PRACTICE 2017

IFRS15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

The amendments clarify the existing guidance for:

Figure2: Five-step approach

Apply the requirements of other IFRSs to Apply the requirements of IFRS15 to

Figure3: Scope of IFRS15

4. THE FIVE STEP APPROACH

(i) Termination (ii) Continuation

Figure4: Accounting for contract modifications

Example sale of a product

ScenarioA the price of each of the additional units is CU75

ScenarioC the price of each of the additional units is CU60

4.2. StepTwo Identify separate performance obligations in the contract

Is the promise to transfer a good or service separate from the other

The good or service is distinct

Figure5: Distinct goods or services

Identifying promised goods or services (Agenda Paper12; January2015)

Combining a good or service with other promised goods or services

The scope of contracts with customers

Example determining whether goods or services are distinct

4.3. StepThree Determine the transaction price of the contract

Variable consideration most likely amount

Constraining estimates of variable consideration

Scenario1 the vendors estimate of variable consideration is not constrained

Scenario2 the vendors estimate of variable consideration is constrained

The existence of a significant financing component in the contract

The accounting entries required are as follows:

Over the two year construction period:

At the date of transfer of the asset (the building) to the customer:

Consideration payable to a customer

TRG discussions (continued)

4.4. StepFour Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations

Allocating the transaction price based on the stand-alone selling price

Allocation of variable consideration

4.5. StepFive Recognise revenue when each performance obligation is satisfied

Performance obligations satisfied over time

(ii) The vendor creates or enhances an asset controlled by the customer

Enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date

Measuring progress toward complete satisfaction of a performance obligation

Revenue recognition at a point in time

Incremental costs of obtaining a contract

Costs to fulfil a contract

Scenario2 (looking at subsequent commission)

5.2. Changes in the transaction price after contract inception

5.3. Sale with a right of return

5.5. Principal vs. agent

Taxes (Agenda Paper2; July2014 and Clarifications to IFRS15)

5.6. Customer options for additional goods or services

TRG discussions (continued)

5.7. Renewal options

Accounting for early renewal rights

5.8. Customers unexercised rights

5.9. Non-refundable upfront fees

Activities affecting the intellectual property

The following examples were discussed:

5.11. Sales-based or usage-based royalties

5.12. Repurchase agreements

5.13. Consignment arrangements

5.14. Bill-and-hold arrangements