Supplier Finance Programs: Optimizing Working Capital, Strengthening Relationships, and Ensuring Transparency (ASU 2022-04)

Scrubbed

Scrubbed

Supplier Finance Programs: Optimizing Working Capital, Strengthening Relationships, and Ensuring Transparency (ASU 2022-04)

Efficiently managing working capital is crucial in today’s complex business landscape. However, when buyers extend payment terms to optimize cash flow, it can strain suppliers’ financial stability and the buyer-supplier relationship. To mitigate these challenges, many organizations turn to supplier finance programs, alternatively referred to as reverse factoring, payables finance, or structured payables arrangements. These programs foster mutually beneficial outcomes by providing a framework where buyers, suppliers, and financial institutions collaborate to streamline payments and enhance liquidity management. In this article, we will explore how supplier finance programs work, the advantages they offer, and the disclosure requirements outlined in Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2022-04 to ensure transparency in financial reporting. 


Looking for Technical Accounting Support? Let us help you.



The Supplier Finance Program Solution and Process:

Supplier finance programs provide a structured mechanism where suppliers can receive prompt payment upon invoice approval from the buyer. The process involves several key steps that facilitate the seamless execution of the Supplier Finance Program:

  1. Invoice Submission and Approval: Suppliers submit their invoices to the buyer for approval. The invoices contain details of the products or services provided, along with the agreed-upon payment terms.
  2. Evaluation and Financing by Financial Institutions: Once the buyer approves the invoices, financial institutions evaluate the approved invoices and assess the creditworthiness of the buyer. They use the buyer’s credit rating to offer financing options to the suppliers.
  3. Early Payment Options for Suppliers: Suppliers, with the support of the buyer’s credit rating, can avail themselves of early payment options from financial institutions. These options allow suppliers to receive payment for their approved invoices before the due date, improving their cash flow.
  4. Payment Delivery: Once The financial institutions disburse the early payment to the suppliers. The payment amount corresponds to the approved invoice value minus any fees or interest charges associated with the early payment option.
  5. Buyer’s Payment Settlement: Simultaneously or at a later stage, the buyer settles the invoice payment with the financial institutions according to the agreed-upon terms. This settlement ensures that the buyer fulfills their payment obligation.


Supplier finance programs facilitate timely payment to suppliers, enhance supplier’s liquidity, and optimize the buyer’s working capital. By leveraging the buyer’s credit rating, suppliers gain access to financing from financial institutions at lower interest rates than they could obtain independently, promoting financial stability and favorable business relationships. These benefits can also support industries with complex cash flow needs, making supplier finance a strategic complement to real estate accounting solutions and other industry-specific financial strategies.



Classification, Presentation, and Disclosure Guidance:


ASU 2022-04 Liabilities – Supplier Finance Programs (Subtopic 405-50): Disclosure of Supplier Finance Program Obligations introduces specific disclosure requirements to ensure transparency and informed decision-making for buyer participation in supplier finance programs. These provisions focus on enhancing disclosure requirements in financial reports and providing qualitative and quantitative information about the program’s terms, outstanding obligations, and changes over time. 


Classification and Presentation

Buyers can classify a supplier finance program as either trade payable or debt categorized as “due to bank,” or other line item as appropriate based on the program’s terms. This decision affects the presentation of related information on the balance sheet and statement of cash flows. ASU 2022-04 does not affect the recognition, measurement, classification, and financial statement presentation of obligations covered by supplier finance programs.


To determine whether a supplier finance program should be classified as a financing transaction rather than a trade payable (i.e., trade payable classification is not appropriate), the following indicators, as stated by the SEC staff, may be considered:

  • Referral or rebate payments made by the paying agent to the buyer.
  • Paying agent reducing the outstanding amount owed by the buyer, resulting in a payment amount lower than the original invoice’s due date.
  • Extension of the buyer’s payment date beyond the original invoice’s due date by the paying agent.
  • Active participation by the buyer in the factoring process of the vendor’s receivable to the paying agent.


It is essential to carefully analyze all relevant facts and circumstances related to the substance of the transaction.



Disclosure Requirements (ASU 2022-04)

To ensure transparency and accountability, buyers that use  supplier finance programs must provide explicit disclosure of the following information:


Key Program Terms:


This includes, but is not limited to, a comprehensive description of payment terms such as the timing of payments and the basis for their determination, and any assets pledged as security or other guarantees provided to the financial provider or intermediary.


Obligations Confirmed as Valid:

  1. Outstanding Amount: Disclosure of unpaid confirmed amounts at the end of the reporting period.
  2. Balance Sheet Presentation: Description of the location of the confirmed obligations in the balance sheet.
  3. Rollforward of Information: Information on confirmed obligations encompassing, at a minimum, the beginning balance, additions, settlements, and the outstanding balance at the end of the reporting period. 


Buyers should also disclose the outstanding obligations confirmed as valid to the finance provider or intermediary in each interim reporting period to provide up-to-date information on financial obligations.



Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) Disclosures for Public Entities


MD&A disclosures play a crucial role in providing transparency and insights into a public entity’s financial condition and operations. In the context of supplier finance programs, certain disclosure requirements exist under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. SEC Regulation S-X, Rule 5-02, Balance Sheets, mandates separate presentation of specific accounts and notes payable, including amounts owed to banks for borrowings and trade creditors. Similarly, SEC Regulation S-K, Item 303, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, necessitates a discussion on liquidity and capital resources.


To comply with these requirements, public entities must address the impact of supplier finance programs on their financial statements. Moreover, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Division of Corporate Finance provided additional guidance on disclosing liquidity and capital resources.


When disclosing information about supplier finance programs, public entities should address:


  • Indicating reliance on these programs for cash flow management.
  • Discussing the material impact on the balance sheet, statement of cash flows, and short- and long-term liquidity.
  • Providing details about the material terms of the arrangements.
  • Disclosing any guarantees provided by the entity or its subsidiaries.
  • Assessing and disclosing material risks associated with the termination of the programs.
  • Disclosing the amounts payable at the end of the reporting period related to these programs.
  • Disclosing the portion of these amounts that an intermediary has already settled.

By addressing these disclosure requirements in the MD&A, public entities can provide stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of the impact of supplier finance programs on their financial statements, cash flows, and overall liquidity. This transparency fosters informed decision-making and enhances investor confidence in the entity’s financial performance and risk management practices.



Effective Date and Transition

The amendments are effective for fiscal years commencing after December 15, 2022, which include interim periods within those fiscal years, except for the disclosures for rollforward information, which becomes effective for fiscal years commencing after December 15, 2023, with the option for early adoption. Retrospective application is required, except for the rollforward information, which should be implemented prospectively. Interim disclosures should include key program terms and presentation of obligations in the balance sheet during the year of adoption.



Conclusion

Supplier finance programs optimize working capital and strengthen buyer-supplier relationships by leveraging the crucial role of financial institutions in providing lower-risk financing and facilitating network expansion through collaboration with the parties involved. The enhanced disclosure requirements enable stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of the program’s terms and obligations through qualitative and quantitative information. ASU 2022-04 promotes transparency which allows the formation of well-informed decisions regarding the financial condition of companies involved in supplier finance programs.



How Can Scrubbed Help?

We can assist you by evaluating specific scenarios related to the changes in ASU 2022-04 for your industry. In addition, we provide technical consultation on complicated accounting transactions, prepare accounting memos, and provide audit support. Our team can help  ease the burden of ongoing reporting requirements and the application of complex accounting matters.

Related Content

Blogs

September 15 Estimated Tax Deadline: Strategies for Pass-Through Entities

September 15 Estimated Tax Deadline: Strategies for Pass-Through Entities

For growing pass-through entities, the September 15 tax deadline often creates a collision between cash flow and internal capacity. Guessing at estimated payments leaves companies vulnerable to IRS penalties or unnecessarily traps critical working capital meant for Q4 growth. By establishing a Safe Harbor floor and utilizing the Annualized Income Installment Method, companies can align tax outlays directly with actual revenue. When this execution is handled proactively, finance leaders stop playing defense against deadlines and reclaim their time for strategic planning. When a high-growth pass-through entity, such as an S-Corp or a Partnership, comes off an unexpectedly strong summer, revenue is up. This should be a moment for leadership to celebrate and plan their Q4 investments. Instead, the internal finance team often finds themselves staring down a cash crunch they didn't anticipate. The pressure point is September 15. For growing operations, this date is often a collision course. It is not only the deadline for Q3 estimated tax payments, but it is also the extended filing deadline for Forms 1065 and 1120-S . When you have an internal team trying to finalize the previous year's historical data while simultaneously projecting the current year's performance, the structure usually begins to strain. This isn't about a team dropping the ball. It's simply what happens when internal workflows haven't scaled up to match a company's growth. When two major deadlines collide, and the volume is too high, a stretched team has no choice but to improvise. The Cost of "Guesstimating" In a pass-through entity, the business itself generally does not pay federal income tax. Because income from partnerships and S corporations generally passes through to their owners, owners may need to make individual estimated tax payments based in part on their share of the entity’s taxable income When internal teams don't have a dedicated workflow for this, they often get bogged down trying to predict exact year-end profits during a busy quarter. Without a clear mechanism to manage this, I frequently see companies do one of two things: they either underpay and leave themselves vulnerable to IRS penalties, or they overpay to "be safe." Overpaying might feel like the responsible choice in the moment, but it unnecessarily ties up working capital. When these distributions are sized off gross revenue rather than a projection that accounts for deductions or state-level elections, the company pulls more cash out of the operating account than the owners actually owe. That excess traps liquidity that could have been used to fund critical Q4 growth initiatives—like a marketing push or inventory expansion—without seeking outside financing. Establishing an Estimated-Tax Safe Harbor  When our tax professionals step in to manage this process, the very first thing we do is establish a predictable foundation. We immediately build a "Tax Compliance Calendar" integrated with a "Safe Harbor Floor." A useful starting point is determining which estimated-tax safe harbor applies. For many taxpayers, one option is to base required annual payments on 100% of the prior year's tax, increasing to 110% for certain higher-income taxpayers. The current-year 90% test may also apply. Meeting the applicable requirements through timely payments can generally reduce exposure to estimated-tax underpayment penalties. Once that floor is established, we can adjust for the reality of the current year. Aligning Outlays with Actual Cash Flow If a company sees a massive spike in revenue during Q3, the standard installment method might demand a payment that creates a sudden cash flow imbalance. Good intentions won't balance the cash flow at this stage; you need a precise mathematical approach. To stabilize cash flow during a sudden revenue surge, one strategy to consider is the Annualized Income Installment Method . Instead of assuming income is earned evenly throughout the year, the Annualized Income Installment Method determines the owner's required installments based more closely on income earned during the applicable annualization periods State-level PTE tax elections may also provide federal tax benefits by allowing qualifying state income taxes to be paid and deducted at the entity level rather than being subject to the individual SALT deduction limitation. The result? Depending on the state's PTE tax regime, entity-level payments may reduce the state estimated-tax payments otherwise required from individual owners. A deductible PTE tax payment may also reduce the taxable income passed through to owners for federal purposes, which can affect their projected federal estimated-tax liability. Restoring Strategic Headspace When tax planning is handled consistently throughout the year, it changes how a leadership team operates. It can significantly reduce the risk of an "April Surprise." When Q3 estimates are calculated accurately and tied to a deliberate strategy, leadership knows exactly how much capital is truly theirs to spend. Tax shifts from a looming, unpredictable liability into a manageable line item. Just as importantly, the internal finance leader gets their time back. Instead of spending the first two weeks of September finalizing and issuing K-1s, calculating thresholds, and worrying about penalties, they can focus on high-level financial modeling and operational efficiency. A strong tax partner doesn't just run the numbers; they take the friction out of the process so your team can focus forward. When an experienced team handles the heavy lifting behind the scenes, you stop playing defense against IRS deadlines and start using tax strategy as a genuine tool to fund your growth. See how our tax professionals support growing operations and keep execution predictable. Let's talk through how we can support your finance function. Comparing Q3 Tax Strategies: Safe Harbor vs. Annualized Method vs. PTE Strategy Ideal for Primary Benefit Risk Level  100%/110% Safe Harbor  Rapidly growing companies  Provides protection from estimated-tax underpayment penalties when applicable safe-harbor requirements are satisfied  Low (May temporarily tie up cash if revenue drops)  Annualized Method  Seasonal or late-year spiking revenue Align tax outlays directly with timing of taxable income  Moderate (Requires meticulous record-keeping) PTE Tax Election Entities in high-tax states May provide an entity-level federal deduction for qualifying state income taxes while providing state tax benefits to eligible owners Low (Requires state-specific eligibility and election compliance) Key Takeaways: The Deadline Collision: The simultaneous timing of Q3 estimates and extended historical filings places severe strain on internal finance teams when workflows haven't scaled. The Cost of "Guesstimating": Overpaying estimated taxes based on gross revenue ties up liquidity that could otherwise fund critical Q4 growth initiatives without requiring outside financing. Building a Safe Harbor Floor: Establishing a baseline payment based on 100% or 110% of the prior year's tax liability can provide protection from estimated-tax underpayment penalties when the applicable safe-harbor requirements are satisfied. Aligning Cash Flow: The Annualized Income Installment Method stabilizes cash positions by calculating tax based on income earned during the applicable annualization periods rather than an arbitrary quarterly fraction. Restoring Strategic Headspace: When tax planning is handled reliably behind the scenes, internal finance leaders get their time back to focus on high-level financial modeling instead of chasing K-1s.

Read More >
Blogs

Decoding the Digital Ledger: Navigating FASB’s New Standards for Crypto Assets and Intangibles (ASU 2023-08)

Decoding the Digital Ledger: Navigating FASB’s New Standards for Crypto Assets and Intangibles (ASU 2023-08)

In a groundbreaking move reflecting the swift evolution of the financial landscape, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has taken a significant step with the release of the final Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2023-08 titled “Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets.” This authoritative guidance specifically addresses Crypto Assets within the Intangibles—Goodwill and Other category, marking a crucial advance in establishing standardized accounting practices for these assets. Bridging the Gap: A Brief Background The rise of digital assets, from cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum to unique non-fungible tokens (NFTs), has challenged traditional accounting norms. Without specific Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) guidance, accounting professionals relied on analogies and interpretations, resulting in a diverse patchwork of practices.  Our article “Rise of Digital Assets in Business” explored the evolving landscape, highlighting the AICPA Practice Aid titled “Accounting for and Auditing of Digital Assets” as a crucial guide within the constraints of the existing accounting framework. We are witnessing a groundbreaking shift with the finalized FASB’s ASU on Crypto Assets, effective December 15, 2024, which will change how the world sees crypto assets. Who Will Be Affected? The new ASU applies to a wider range of entities than you might think. Any entity holding crypto assets that meet specific criteria will be impacted. These criteria include: Meet the definition of an intangible asset. Do not grant enforceable rights or claims on underlying goods, services, or assets. Exist on a blockchain-based distributed ledger or similar technology. Are secured using cryptography. Are fungible. Are not created or issued by the reporting entity or its related parties. Crypto assets falling within these criteria must be measured at fair value, with changes in value recognized in their income statement each reporting period. Moreover, transaction costs incurred in acquiring these assets, such as commissions and related fees, will be expensed unless other industry-specific guidance dictates otherwise. A Closer Look at the New ASU  Mandating Relevance: Fair Value Measurement  The update mandates the fair value measurement of crypto assets at each reporting period. This focus on fair value measurement stems from the belief that fair value offers investors more relevant information about the assets’ sale value and changes in that value. The Board rejected historical cost and net realizable value as alternatives due to limitations in reflecting downward and upward price movements. The existing guidance in Topic 820 was deemed sufficient for fair value measurement, given its applicability to other assets and current use by reporting entities. As financial reporting evolves, organizations offering ESG reporting services may also need to consider how such valuation updates intersect with broader transparency and sustainability disclosure requirements. Beyond Annual Assessment: Recognizing Both Gains and Losses Unlike the existing ASC 350 model, which mandates an annual assessment of crypto asset value that only recognizes gains upon sale, the update embraces a more dynamic approach. The new method captures both negative and positive market movements, addressing longstanding concerns about the traditional model’s failure to reflect the true and current economic nature of crypto assets at each reporting period. As well as providing a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying economics and an entity’s financial position, the shift signifies a progressive step toward a more responsive and accurate representation of the financial impact of market fluctuations on digital holdings. Enhancing Transparency: Disclosure Requirements The ASU prioritizes transparency, incorporating detailed disclosure requirements for asset categorization, impairment considerations, and, notably, the separate presentation of crypto assets from other intangible assets in the statement of financial position. Entities must disclose the following for annual and interim reporting periods: 1. Details of significant and less significant crypto asset holdings, including name, cost basis, fair value, and quantity. 2. Information on restricted crypto assets, covering fair value, nature, the remaining duration of restrictions, and circumstances for the potential lapse. For annual reporting periods, additional disclosures are required: 1. A roll forward of crypto asset activity, including additions, dispositions, gains, and losses. Specify the income statement line item for unrecognized gains and losses if not presented separately. 2. Detail dispositions of crypto assets, including sale price, cost basis difference, and relevant activities. 3. The method used to determine the cost basis of crypto assets. These changes enhance transparency and understanding of crypto asset holdings, ensuring comprehensive disclosure for annual and interim reporting periods. Nevertheless, entities immediately converting crypto assets received as noncash consideration or contributions into cash are exempt from the above annual additional disclosures. The Countdown Begins: Timeline and Adoption The final standard takes effect for all entities in reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2024, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, allowing entities to embrace the changes ahead of the mandated timeline. However, early adopters must use a modified retrospective approach, requiring recording a cumulative effect adjustment to equity (or net assets) from the commencement of the adoption year. What Lies Ahead: Implications for the Future The issuance of the finalized ASU 2023-08 represents a proactive response to the growing significance of crypto assets in today’s financial landscape. The finalized ASU is a significant milestone in our journey toward a standardized and transparent future for crypto asset accounting, offering consistency in financial reporting across diverse industries engaged with crypto assets. The FASB’s move acknowledges the need for accounting standards that keep pace with technological advancements and reflect the realities of the modern economy. Stay tuned for further developments. How Scrubbed Can Help You? Navigating the opportunities and challenges of crypto assets demands expertise, whether you’re an individual investor or a business. At Scrubbed, our comprehensive range of services empowers you to stay ahead: • Compliance Experts: Navigate crypto regulations effortlessly with our seasoned professionals. From taxes to reporting, we’ve got your compliance needs covered. • Rock-Solid Controls: Establish secure systems and ensure compliance with the latest financial reporting standards like GAAP and IFRS. • Innovative Strategies: Beyond the numbers, we offer strategic insights about market tren ds and help you make wise decisions. As we collectively pioneer a new era of financial reporting, Scrubbed is committed to bridging the gap between traditional accounting norms and the groundbreaking shifts introduced by the FASB on Crypto Assets. Our Technical Accounting Group is ready to assist your business in decoding the digital ledger, ensuring effective operations, and maintaining compliance with evolving regulations. We also provide specialized biotech accounting services, supporting organizations in highly regulated industries with tailored financial reporting solutions. For a comprehensive consultancy assessment tailored to your specific needs, reach out to [email protected].

Read More >
Blogs

The Rise of Digital Assets in Business

The Rise of Digital Assets in Business

Companies are beginning to set foot into unconventional investments, such as Bitcoin, and Ethereum, which are cryptocurrencies, a form of digital assets. With their tremendous potential for growth and unique portability and transparency, digital assets are an alluring venture. This can transform how financial markets operate, and investors interact with the traditional financial system. Also, as more companies embrace up-to-date and open technology, digital assets could become a more common medium of exchange and a streamlined, transparent, and cost-efficient form of value transfer. Like all other investments, digital assets should conform to the broader investment strategy developed by companies. With the endless opportunities and possibilities in digital assets comes a wide variety of risks including the well-known volatile market for cryptocurrencies and NFTs, digital hacking, security breach, and theft (depending on how users store these assets); regulators continue to evaluate how to oversee the ever-evolving digital landscape. The rules of play are provisional, which makes risk assessment of digital assets critical. Digital asset investments will require constant and frequent monitoring of the market and several risk factors. The risk and liquidity of digital assets will also need to be evaluated and paralleled with the companies’ investment strategy. As these innovative digital investments and currency forms are becoming more prevalent and interlinked with the regulated financial system, there’s an increasing likelihood that companies will come across digital assets in any way. Fundamental accounting and risk and SOX compliance with digital assets are challenging. However, the more we comprehend how digital assets work, the easier it will be to adhere to laws and regulations. What is a Digital Asset? There is currently no precise definition for this type of asset; however, we can refer to the executive order issued by US President Joe Biden last March 9, 2022, titled, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets” . As outlined in the order, the term “Digital Assets” is the umbrella term that refers to all cryptography-based assets and other representations of value, regardless of the technology used, that are issued or represented in digital form through the use of distributed ledger or “blockchain” technology. With the vast range of this topic, the most well-known forms of digital assets include: (a) Cryptocurrencies – such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, and Cardano; (b) NFTs – a unique and non-divisible token that allows for authentication to prove its legitimacy and ownership, usually associated with artworks, media files, documents, and even a unique item within an online game.; and (c) Asset-Backed Tokens – which derives their value on conventional physical assets, such as gold, oil and even real estate, which are “tokenized” and traded among users on the blockchain. Tokenization of these assets can help with asset liquidity problems and make them more accessible to a wider range of investors and users, at lower administrative costs. Common Accounting Considerations As we deal with digital assets, below are the common accounting questions regarding this type of asset: How are these: Classified in the accounting records? Initially recognized and measured? Assessed for valuation and impairment? Derecognized?   To date, the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), as represented by FASB Codification, has yet to provide specific guidance on accounting for digital assets. With this, publicly available information such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid titled, “Accounting for and Auditing of Digital Assets” , is used as a guide and reference in the meantime. The practice aid conclusion stated that the characteristics of digital assets meet the definition of indefinite-lived intangible assets and would generally be accounted for under Accounting Standards Codification or ASC 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other.    In addition, when applying the existing US GAAP guidance by analogy, native digital assets generally do not meet the definitions of cash, inventory, or financial assets and are accounted for as an intangible assets. It emphasized that “digital” would not meet the definition of other asset classes within GAAP, as described in the following examples: • Digital Assets will not meet the definition of cash and cash equivalents as they are not considered legal tender and are not backed by sovereign governments.  • Digital Assets will not be financial assets as they do not represent a contractual right to receive cash or another financial instrument • Digital Assets, though may be held for sale in the ordinary course of business, they are not tangible assets and therefore may not meet the definition of inventory. However, the problem with digital assets that are accounted for as indefinite-lived intangible assets is that, it only captures negative volatility through impairment recognition. Note that under ASC 350, if an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired, an impairment loss is recognized, but any subsequent increase or recovery in value cannot be recognized until the asset is sold. As a result, this could be misleading to the users of financial statements and does not truly represent the economic nature of digital assets as these generally have actively traded markets.  While there is no official accounting model yet that considers the proper way to reflect the substance, liquidity, and value of the digital assets that are aligned with the economic reality, other models may be more appropriate, depending on the circumstances. This can vary widely, and, therefore, the accounting framework to be applied under US GAAP needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The type of digital asset will also be a critical factor in terms of accounting and financial reporting under existing accounting rules.  As the adoption of digital assets continues to soar, these issues will only become more prevalent and pervasive. Standard setters will continue to look into alternative and more refined approaches to accounting for digital assets to resolve practical problems and provide transparent financial reporting for users of financial statements.  Recent Developments With digital assets’ potential to transform the traditional financial system, the associated challenges are drawing considerable regulatory attention. To date, below are the relevant developments for the regulation of digital assets: • On March 9, 2020, US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which includes cryptocurrency and other assets such as NFTs. The executive order shows the commitment of the White House to participate in the research on cryptocurrencies and engage departments across the government to collaborate in creating a framework that will regulate digital assets. It also outlines a “whole-of-government approach to addressing the risks and harnessing the potential benefits of digital assets and their underlying technology.” Further, it serves as official recognition of the increasing impact of digital assets and the US federal government’s intention to regulate digital assets as a whole and cryptocurrencies, specifically. • On March 31, 2020, the US SEC issued a Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) on accounting for the obligations to safeguard crypto assets that an entity such as a crypto exchange holds for users. It clarifies how the agency expects companies to apply existing accounting standards to digital assets.  • On May 11, 2022, the FASB added a project to its technical plan to improve the accounting for and disclosure of certain digital assets. Previously, the FASB has received three agenda requests on digital assets since October 2020, all of which encourage the Board to address the financial reporting for digital assets. • And more recently, the US Treasury Department issued a “Greenbook” that includes budget proposals to modernize various tax rules, including those for digital assets. Rules will change for treating securities loans as tax-free to have other asset classes and address income inclusion, provide for information reporting by certain financial institutions and digital asset brokers for purposes of exchange of information, and require reporting by certain taxpayers of foreign digital asset accounts. In addition, the plan would amend the mark-to-market rules for dealers and traders to include digital assets. What’s Ahead? As the digital asset landscape continues to evolve across various types of market participants, products, and technologies, companies and other stakeholders of all kinds must be able to properly reflect and disclose these digital assets in their financials and assess the overall impact of the risks involved in owning these types of assets when making decisions. However, since digital assets are new and unique from other investments, the existing accounting models does not yet fully reflect these assets’ true nature and value in accounting and financial reporting. Also,  companies must be aware that regulators are rapidly evolving their guidance on reporting, so the rules of engagement today may be different in the future. Accordingly, accounting, assurance, and tax services for companies with digital assets have become more sophisticated and require professional advisors to understand the nature of those complexities. This is similar to the specialized approach required for nonprofit financial reporting, where unique compliance requirements demand expert knowledge and precision. We’d love to help. To ensure that all factors are considered in the pursuit of reliable financial reporting, effective and efficient operations, and compliance with law and regulations, our services can be scaled to accommodate your business needs. Our Technical accounting Group provides a thorough analysis on assessing the impact of complex and unusual accounting transactions.   E-mail us at [email protected] for a full consultancy assessment. Disclaimer: The information contained herein is general and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. It is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional services. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act upon such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. *Disclaimer: Services being offered do not require a state license. About the Author Reinald John Maliberan is a supervisor of the Technical Accounting Group of Scrubbed. He assists companies in preparing technical memoranda and performs an extensive review of US GAAP financial statements (i.e., 10-Q and 10-K reports), note disclosures, and account reconciliations. Before joining Scrubbed, he has almost five years of professional experience with Ernst and Young (EY) Philippines handling financial statement audits for public and private companies.

Read More >

Links

Contact Information

SF Bay Area Headquarters
111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 320, Burlingame, CA 94010, United States

Phone: (800)837-5160
Email: [email protected]

"Scrubbed" is the brand name under which Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP provide professional services. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP practice in an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations, and professional standards. Scrubbed Assurance, LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Scrubbed Advisory, LLC provides tax, finance, and support services to its clients. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC is not a licensed CPA firm.

Copyright © Scrubbed. All rights reserved.