Thursday, May 17, 2012

A & A Alert - February 2012

rubinbrown-aaa
FEBRUARY 2012

RubinBrown's Accounting & Auditing Alert is published monthly
to inform our clients and contacts about relevant technical
accounting and 
audit-related information.

FASB Finalizes Deferral On Recently Required Presentation Of Other Comprehensive Income Reclassifications

The December 2011 edition of the Accounting & Auditing Alert presented the details of a proposed ASU to defer portions of ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income (click here to view the December 2011 story)

On December 23, 2011, the FASB finalized this proposal through the issuance of ASU 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05.

ASU 2011-12 contains no significant modifications to the original proposal.  The FASB expects to complete its additional assessment on this topic by the end of 2012.  The amendments in ASU 2011-12 are effective at the same time as the amendments in ASU 2011-05 so that entities will not be required to comply with the presentation requirements in ASU 2011-05. 

These amendments are effective for public entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011.  For nonpublic entities, the amendments are effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2012, and interim and annual periods thereafter.


Since 1998, accounting standards for non-governmental entities, excluding nonprofit organizations, have required the recognition and presentation of certain accounting events in an equity category referred to as Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) as well as supplementary income/expense reporting in a statement of Other Comprehensive Income (OCI), while skipping recognition in the Income Statement.  

A statement of OCI starts with net income and adds or subtracts changes in AOCI balances to arrive at a bottom line presentation of profit/loss that presents a more theoretically pure representation of an entity’s true results for the period.  For example, investment securities classified by an organization as “available for sale” (as opposed to “trading” or “held to maturity”) are marked to market value on the balance sheet at each reporting date with the resulting unrealized gain or loss recorded directly in equity via AOCI.  This income statement-averting unrealized investment gain or loss is reported in an OCI statement which is most commonly presented immediately following the income statement.


Continuing with our investment security example, once the security is subsequently sold and the sale-date gain or loss (difference between original cost basis and the previously marked to market carrying value) becomes realized and therefore reported in the income statement, it is necessary to reverse the cumulative sum of unrealized gains and losses for that security in order to report the total holding period gain or loss in the income statement.  These previous unrealized gains and losses would reside in AOCI equity at the time of the security sale.  

ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income, effective for years beginning after December 15, 2011 (public companies) and ending after December 15, 2012 (nonpublic companies), among other things requires separate line item reporting of these reclassifications on the face of the income statement and the statement of OCI at their gross amounts as opposed to netting with other similar line items. 

Users of financial statements have expressed concern that the financial statements are not sufficiently transparent with respect to these reclassifications and therefore cannot readily determine the effect on current period profitability that results from prior period transactions.


ASU 2011-12 defers the effective date of the presentation of OCI reclassification adjustments at gross amounts on the face of the financial statements over concern by stakeholders that ASU 2011-05 presentation requirements would be costly for preparers and may add unnecessary complexity to financial statements as a result of the addition of required separate line items on the face of the statements.   The purpose of this deferral is to provide the FASB with additional time to address these concerns.

The full text of the ASU is available by clicking here.

   

PCAOB Reproposes Auditing Standard On Communications With Audit Committees

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has reproposed for comment an auditing standard on Communications with Audit Committees, and other amendments to PCAOB standards. The standard was initially proposed on March 29, 2010. 

Like the original proposal, the reproposed standard would establish requirements that enhance the relevance and quality of the communications between the auditor and the audit committee. The reproposed standard, in addition, would better align the communication requirements with performance requirements in other PCAOB standards, including the risk assessment standards (Auditing Standard Nos. 8-15).

Furthermore, on July 21, 2010, Congress gave the PCAOB oversight over the audits of SEC-registered brokers and dealers. Reproposing this standard provides an opportunity to comment on the standard in relation to the audits of brokers and dealers.

"Communication with audit committees is a fundamental responsibility of any auditor and has a direct and serious impact on the quality of that audit. This reproposal is intended to further enhance those communications," said James R. Doty, PCAOB Chairman.

The proposed auditing standard would supersede PCAOB interim standard AU sec. 380, Communication With Audit Committees, and AU sec. 310, Appointment of the Independent Auditor, and amend other PCAOB standards. Any new auditing standard and amendments to other PCAOB standards adopted by the PCAOB will be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for approval.


Comments on the reproposed standard are due February 29, 2012.  The full text of the proposed auditing standard is available by clicking here.

   

Boards Issue Enhanced Disclosure Requirements Related To Offsetting Arrangements

The FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have issued new accounting standards that are intended to enhance current disclosure requirements on offsetting financial assets and liabilities. 

As part of this joint effort, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.  The new disclosures will enable financial statement users to compare balance sheets prepared under U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which had been subject to different offsetting models.


In response to cost and operational concerns, the FASB and the IASB limited the disclosure requirements to recognized financial instruments (and derivatives) subject to master netting arrangements or similar agreements. Similar agreements include derivative clearing agreements, global master repurchase agreements, and global master securities lending agreements.

Financial instruments and transactions that will be subject to the disclosure requirements may include derivatives, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities lending and borrowing arrangements. Financial instruments that are not subject to the disclosure requirements include loans and customer deposits at the same institution (unless they are offset in the balance sheet) and financial instruments that are only subject to a collateral agreement. In addition, financial instruments collateralized by nonfinancial collateral (e.g., a loan collateralized by a building) are not within the scope of the new requirements.


The amendments will affect all entities that have financial instruments (and derivatives) that are either offset in the balance sheet or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement (regardless of whether they are offset in the balance sheet).

At a minimum, an entity is to disclose, separately for financial assets and liabilities (including derivatives):
  1. The gross amounts of recognized financial assets and liabilities;
  2. The amounts offset under current U.S. GAAP;
  3. The net amounts presented in the balance sheet;
  4. The amounts subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement that were not included in (b); and
  5. The net amount (i.e., the difference between (c) and (d)).
This information is to be presented in a tabular format, unless another format is more appropriate. The amounts in (d) include recognized financial instrument and derivative amounts related to rights of setoff that are not offset under current U.S. GAAP. This occurs when management makes an accounting policy election to not offset, or the amounts do not meet the offsetting guidance.

Cash and financial instrument collateral (whether recognized or not) associated with netting arrangements also are to be disclosed. The effect of overcollateralization must be taken into account. Thus, the total amount in (d) is limited to the amounts presented in the balance sheet for the financial asset or liability to which it relates (i.e., item (c)).


The quantitative disclosures are to be presented by type of financial instrument or transaction. However, an entity could instead choose to provide the information in (a) through (c) by type of financial instrument and (c) through (e) by counterparty. The Boards permitted this flexibility because they understood that many preparers manage credit risk by counterparty and not by class of financial instrument.

Individually significant counterparties are to be disclosed separately (on a no-name basis), and individually insignificant counterparties can be aggregated. Designation of the counterparties (e.g., counterparty A, counterparty B, etc.) is expected to be consistent from year to year to allow comparability. An entity should also consider adding qualitative disclosures to provide further information about the types of counterparties.

An entity will be required to provide a description of the types of setoff rights included in (d), as well as the nature of those rights. For collateral received or pledged, an entity should describe the terms of the collateral agreement (e.g., when the collateral is restricted).

Disclosures may need to be supplemented with additional qualitative disclosures depending on the terms of the enforceable master netting arrangements and related agreements, including the nature of the rights of setoff and their effect or potential effect on the entity’s financial position.

The new standard adds to the current disclosure requirements for derivatives and related collateral that are offset in the balance sheet. However, it adds new disclosures for other financial instruments and transactions subject to enforceable master netting arrangements or similar agreements (e.g., repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions).

The disclosures will be limited to financial instruments (and derivatives) subject to enforceable master netting arrangements or similar agreements and will be effective for annual and interim periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. An entity will provide the disclosures retrospectively for all periods presented.

The full text of the ASU is available by clicking here.
   

FASB Issues Guidance On Derecognition Of In Substance Real Estate

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) recently issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-10, under Topic 360 (Property, Plant, and Equipment) titled Derecognition of in Substance Real Estate—a Scope Clarification

This ASU clarifies that the guidance in ASC 360-20, which covers real estate sales, applies to a transaction in which a parent ceases to have a controlling financial interest in an in substance real estate subsidiary resulting from, and only from, a default by the subsidiary on its related nonrecourse debt.


In accordance with ASC Section 810-10-40, Consolidation—Derecognition of a Subsidiary or Derecognition of a Group of Assets, a parent is required to deconsolidate a subsidiary or derecognize a group of assets, except for the sale of in substance real estate or the conveyance of oil and gas mineral rights, as of the date the parent ceases to have a controlling financial interest in that subsidiary or group of assets.

In practice, there have been differing views regarding  whether, in respect of an in substance real estate subsidiary, the parent company must also satisfy the conditions in ASC 360-20, Property, Plant, and Equipment—Real Estate Sales, to derecognize assets including real estate and liabilities including related nonrecourse debt. If the guidance in ASC 360-20 were to be applied (i.e., in addition to that in FASB ASC 810-10-40) to the loss of a controlling financial interest in a subsidiary that is in substance real estate as a result of a default on the subsidiary's nonrecourse debt, the parent would most likely not satisfy the requirements to derecognize the real estate before legal transfer of it to the lender and the related nonrecourse debt was extinguished.

Thus, even if the parent ceased to have a controlling financial interest in an in substance real estate subsidiary, the parent could not derecognize the subsidiary's assets and liabilities until legal title to the real estate has been transferred in return for legal satisfaction of the debt. ASU No. 2011-10 amends the scope of ASC 360-20 to clarify that it applies to a transaction in which a parent ceases to have a controlling financial interest in an in substance real estate subsidiary only as a result of default by the subsidiary on its nonrecourse debt. It does not address whether FASB ASC 360-20 applies when a parent ceases to have a controlling financial interest in a subsidiary that is in substance real estate in other circumstances. 

In addition, ASU No. 2011-10 amends ASC 810-10-40 to clarify that the deconsolidation and derecognition guidance therein does not apply when a parent loses control of an in substance real estate subsidiary because of the subsidiary's default on its nonrecourse debt.


For nonpublic entities, the amendments are effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2013. For public companies, the amendments become effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2012. Early application is permitted.

The amendments are to be applied prospectively to qualifying deconsolidation events occurring on or after the effective date. Prior periods may not be adjusted, even if the reporting entity has continuing involvement with previously derecognized in substance real estate entities.


The full text of the ASU is available by clicking here.
   

FASB Proposes Amendments To The Accounting Standards Codification Related To Revenue Recognition

As reported in last month’s Accounting & Auditing Alert, the IASB and the FASB have issued for public comment a revised draft standard to improve and converge the financial reporting requirements of IFRS and U.S. GAAP for revenue (and some related costs) from contracts with customers.  

Subsequent to the issuance of that exposure draft, the FASB issued a companion document reflecting changes to the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) that would result from the proposed ASU on revenue recognition.


The companion document contains revisions to the ASC that would result from the proposed ASU.  The proposed amendments reflect changes to the ASC through the issuance of ASU No. 2011-07, Health Care Entities (Topic 954): Presentation and Disclosure of Patient Service Revenue, Provision for Bad Debts, and the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts for Certain Health Care Entities. 

The amendments to Subtopic 946-605 in the proposed ASU, Financial Services—Investment Companies (Topic 946): Amendments to the Scope, Measurement, and Disclosure Requirements and the amendments to Subtopic 973-605 in the proposed ASU, Real Estate—Investment Property Entities (Topic 973), would not be superseded by the amendments in the companion document.


Comments in response to this exposure draft are due March 13, 2012.  The full text of the exposure draft is available by clicking here.
   
Fred Kostecki, CPA - St. Louis
Partner-in-Charge
Assurance Services Group
314.290.3398
fred.kostecki@rubinbrown.com
Todd Pleimann, CPA - Kansas City
Managing Partner - Kansas City Office
Assurance Services Group
913.499.4411
todd.pleimann@rubinbrown.com
Bert Bondi, CPA - Denver
Partner & Denver Practice Leader
Assurance Services Group
303.799.6826
bert.bondi@rubinbrown.com
bakertilly
<