The Basics of ASC 842, Leases

Scrubbed

Scrubbed

The Basics of ASC 842, Leases
The growing concern around the previous lease guidance, Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 840, has finally been addressed as the Financial Accounting Standards Board released its long-awaited leasing standard, ASC 842, Leases, in February 2016. The main criticism of the previous lease guidance is that it did not always provide a faithful representation of leasing transactions. The main objective of ASC 842 is to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing a right-of-use (“ROU”) asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. This gives the users a comprehensive and understandable picture of the company’s leasing activities. The guidance is also one of several joint projects with the International Accounting Standards Board aimed at converging the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and International Financial Reporting Standards.

What’s new?

Definition of a lease. A lease is a contract that conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset to a lessee for a period of time in exchange for consideration. Control over the use of the identified asset means that the customer has both (1) the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from the use of the asset and (2) the right to direct the use of the asset.

Whether a contract is or contains a lease is critical under ASC 842 because lessees are required to recognize ROU assets and liabilities for essentially all leases. Under ASC 840, the critical determination was only whether a lease was a capital lease or an operating lease because only capital leases are recognized in the statement of financial position.

Lease classification. Lease classification is now determined at the commencement date instead of the lease inception date. ASC 842 provided for the application of dual lease model – operating lease and finance lease (either direct financing or sales-type lease for lessor). Under ASC 842, a lessee shall classify a lease as a finance lease, and a lessor shall classify a lease as a sales-type lease when the lease meets any of the following requirements:
  • The lease transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee by the end of the lease term.
  • The lease grants the lessee an option to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise.
  • The lease term is for the major part of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset. However, suppose the commencement date falls at or near the end of the underlying asset’s economic life. In that case, this criterion shall not be used for purposes of classifying the lease.
  • The present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual value guaranteed by the lessee that is not already reflected in the lease payments equals or exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset.
  • The underlying asset is of such a specialized nature that it is expected to have no alternative use to the lessor at the end of the lease term.
The four criteria to determine the lease classification generally remain from ASC 840, with the addition of the 5th requirement above. Notice that the bright lines related to the concept of “the major part of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset” and “lease payments representing substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset” are now removed under ASC 842, which will entail a higher level of judgment from the management. Despite the removal of the bright lines, ASC 842 acknowledges that one reasonable approach in determining whether the lease term is for the major part of the asset’s remaining economic life and whether the lease payments represent substantially all of the asset’s fair value are the 75% and 90% thresholds, respectively, cited in ASC 840.

Initial direct costs. Initial direct costs are broader in scope under the old standard. In ASC 842, initial direct costs only include incremental costs that would not have been incurred if the lease had not been obtained. Costs incurred such as legal fees, cost of negotiating the lease terms, and allocated costs that are capitalizable under ASC 840 will now be expensed under the new standard.

Components. Under ASC 840, executory costs such as insurance, taxes and maintenance are included in minimum lease payments and, consequently, in the lease calculations. In lieu of executory costs, ASC 842 introduced new concepts – lease components, non-lease components, and non-components. Generally, lease consideration is allocated between the lease and non-lease components on a relative standalone price basis. While non-lease components (e.g., common area maintenance) transfer goods and services to the lessees, they do not relate to securing the use of the leased asset. Consideration attributable to non-lease components is not a lease payment and, therefore, is not included in the measurement of ROU asset or lease liability. Companies should account for non-lease components according to other applicable standards unless the company elects the accounting policy to not separate lease and non-lease components. This accounting policy is further discussed in this article.
Activities that do not transfer a good or service to the lessee or amounts paid solely to reimburse costs of the lessor are called non-components and are not allocated any of the considerations in the contract and are usually expensed as incurred. Under ASC 842, executory costs are considered non-components of a lease contract; hence will not qualify for capitalization and are immediately expensed as incurred.

Discount rate. Both lessors and lessees should use the rate implicit in the lease when discounting lease payments. However, if the rate implicit in the lease cannot be reliably determined, lessees should use its incremental borrowing rate (“IBR”). In most cases, lessees use its IBR in its calculation. The disparity arises as IBR is defined differently in both standards. ASC 840, it defines IBR as “the rate that, at lease inception, the lessee would have incurred to borrow over a similar term the funds necessary to purchase the leased asset.”

On the other hand, ASC 842 defines it as “the rate of interest that a lessee would have to pay to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment.” This means that the determination of IBR warrants additional effort as companies would typically need to have a specific quotation from a bank or other financial institutions instead of using the treasury discount rates. Practical expedient related to discount rate is discussed further in this article.

Lessee accounting. Perhaps the biggest change we should expect is the recognition of the ROU asset representing the company’s right to use the underlying asset for the lease term and lease liability for essentially all leases. It can be recalled that under the previous lease standard, ROU asset and lease liability was not required to be recognized for operating leases, but rather lease payments are expensed on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Practical expedient on short-term leases is discussed further in this article.

Initial measurement

Under both operating and finance leases, lease liability is measured, at the commencement date, at the present value of future lease payments, discounted using the discount rate for the lease. Meanwhile, the right-of-use asset is calculated as the sum of lease liability, lease payments made to the lessor at or before the commencement date, and initial direct cost less any lease incentives received.

Subsequent measurement – Lease liability

After the commencement date, the carrying amount of finance lease liability is increased through accretion of interest expense using the discount rate used at the commencement date and reduced by lease payments made. On the other hand, operating lease liability is measured at the present value of the lease payments not yet paid discounted using the discount rate for the lease established at the commencement date.
Even though the subsequent measurement is worded differently, it will still yield the same lease liability balance for the period.

Subsequent measurement – ROU asset

After the commencement date, finance lease ROU asset is measured at cost less any accumulated amortization and any accumulated impairment losses; whereas operating lease ROU asset is measured at the amount of remeasured lease liability, adjusted for prepaid or accrued lease payments, the remaining balance of any lease incentives received, unamortized initial direct costs and any impairment of the ROU asset.

Income statement effect

The lease-related expense of a finance lease is similar to a capital lease in ASC 840. Interest expense is calculated using the effective interest method. ROU asset is amortized on a straight-line basis, unless another systematic basis is applicable, over the useful life of the underlying asset or lease term, whichever is shorter. Interest expense and amortization expense cannot be combined in the same line item and should be presented in a manner consistent with how companies present other interest expense and depreciation and amortization of similar assets, respectively.

For an operating lease, companies will recognize a single lease cost, calculated so that the cost of the lease is allocated over the lease term on a generally straight-line basis. This straight-line lease expense is done by dividing the total lease payments over the lease term. Amortization of ROU asset is calculated as the difference between the straight-line lease expense and interest expense on the lease liability. Bear in mind that we only compute amortization and interest expense for subsequent measurement of ROU asset and a lease liability, respectively. The straight-line lease expense calculated above is the one recorded in the books.

Lessor accounting. The fundamentals of lessor accounting under the old standard remain practically the same. Most of the improvements relate to the alignment of the lease standard with ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.

Same with the old standard, lessors are required to classify a lease as operating, sales-type or direct financing. The fourth classification, leveraged lease, is eliminated prospectively in ASC 842. Lessors use the same criteria as the finance lease classification for lessees. If at least one of the criteria is met, lessors classify the lease as a sales-type lease. If none is met, the lease is classified as an operating lease unless the lessor obtains a residual value guarantee from an unrelated third party other than the lessee and the guarantee is sufficient to satisfy the “substantially all” criterion (as discussed in the lessee accounting section), in which it should be classified as a direct financing lease.

In a sales-type lease, selling profit or loss is recognized depending on the collectability of the lease payments and residual guarantee provided by the lessee, unlike in the old standard where there is a requirement to recognize selling profit or loss. Another improvement in the new standard is that selling profit or loss could now be recognized for direct financing lease. Selling loss is recognized at lease commencement while selling profit is deferred.

Lease of land and building. A contract typically includes lease of both land and building. Under ASC 842, the land is required to be classified and accounted for as a separate lease component unless the accounting effect of not separately accounting it is insignificant. Under ASC 840, the land is separately classified for the purposes of applying the lease-term criterion when the fair value of the land is 25% or more of the combined fair value of the land and building.

Disclosures. ASC 842 requires significantly more extensive qualitative and quantitative requirements, including the nature of the lease, significant assumptions and judgments made and amounts recognized related to the leases, as opposed to a general disclosure of the leasing arrangement under the old standard.

Optional Relief

ASC 842 provides numerous practical expedients and available policy election options to lead the companies into an easier transition to the new standard and reduce the cost and complexity of applying the new standard. The following are the practical expedients allowed:

  • Package of practical expedients – Allows lessees not to reassess (1) whether any expired or existing contracts are or contain leases, (2) lease classification for any expired or existing leases, and (3) initial direct costs for any expired or existing leases. This expedient is available for transition only. Companies must apply all of the expedients in the package to all leases.
  • Hindsight practical expedient – Permits lessees to use hindsight in determining the lease term (i.e., when considering lessee options to extend or terminate the lease and to purchase the underlying asset) and in assessing the impairment of ROU asset. This expedient is available during transition only and must be applied to all leases. On the other hand, accounting policy election options available are as follows:
  • Short-term lease – Permits lessees not to apply the recognition and measurement requirements of ASC 842 for leases with a term of 12 months or less. Note that the 12 months threshold counts from the lease commencement date and not the effective date of the new standard.
  • Risk-free-rate – Permits private company lessees to use a risk-free rate as the discount rate for the lease, determined using a period comparable with that of the lease term. Public companies are not permitted to use the risk-free rate.
  • Lessee policy election to not separate lease and non-lease components – Lessees may elect not to separate lease from non-lease components and instead account both components together as a single lease component. This means that all of the consideration is allocated to the single lease component.
  • Lessor policy election to not separate lease and non-lease components – This allows the lessors to not separate lease from non-lease component if and only if (a) the timing and pattern of transfer of the lease and non-lease component are the same and (b) the lease would be classified as an operating lease if accounted for separately. If the lease component is the predominant component, the combined component (lease and non-lease component) is accounted as an operating lease under ASC 842; otherwise, it is accounted for under ASC 606. Other considerations on transition include the following:
  • Portfolio approach – Companies are permitted to apply the lease guidance at a portfolio level if the company expects that it would not differ materially if the lease guidance is applied on a lease-by-lease or contract-by-contract basis. Companies are not required to quantify the difference, but only a reasonable approach should be taken in determining the appropriate portfolio for its leases.
  • Capitalization threshold – Consistent with the practice in other areas of GAAP (e.g., capitalizing property, plant and equipment), companies may adopt reasonable capitalization thresholds below which ROU asset and lease liability is not recognized.
Effective Date
ASC 842 should be adopted by private companies for annual fiscal reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2021, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022. Meanwhile, the standard is already effective for public companies and public not-for-profit companies starting the fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018 and December 15, 2019, respectively.

Transition Approach

Upon adoption of ASC 842, companies are prohibited from using the full retrospective approach and are only required to apply a modified retrospective approach. Under the modified retrospective approach, companies will need to apply the requirements of ASC 842 to leases that existed before its effective date. There are two options to choose from when considering when to apply the transition accounting and consequently record the transition adjustments:

  • Apply the standard at the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented. Under this option, prior comparative periods are adjusted.
  • Apply the standard at the effective date of the standard. Prior comparative periods would not be adjusted under this option. What’s next?


Private companies should consider the following courses of action in complying with the requirements of ASC 842:

  • Inventory the lease contracts and understand the size and complexity of the lease portfolio
  • Update chart of accounts for new account titles such as right-of-use asset, lease liability, and other lease-related expenses
  • Collect data by reviewing the key terms of existing lease contracts (e.g., lease payment, lease term, escalation rate, extension or termination options)
  • Make a timely decision on the practical expedients and policy elections available
  • Be wary of new contracts that may contain lease
  • Consider the cost-effectiveness of utilizing a lease accounting software
  • Obtain assistance as necessary from technical accounting consultants or other field experts 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, while also supporting your organization’s efforts in risk and SOX compliance and corporate finance advisory.

E-mail us at [email protected] for a full consultancy assessment.

Disclaimer
The information contained herein is of a general nature 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
Sherwin G. LongasaSherwin 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 SEC reports), note disclosures, and account reconciliations. Prior to joining Scrubbed, he has more than three years of professional experience with Reyes Tacandong & Co., handling financial statement audits for public and private companies.

How Scrubbed Can Help

Contact Scrubbed to ensure your business applies the revenue recognition standard correctly with expert support

CONTACT US
How Scrubbed Can Help

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.