Revenue is defined as income arising during an entity’s ordinary activities.
Income is defined as increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that increase equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants.
What is the distinction between revenue and income?
Income is a comprehensive term encompassing revenue and gains, covering all advantages such as asset enhancements or liability settlements, except for contributions from equity participants. Revenue, a component of income, emerges from the sale of goods or services within an entity’s core ongoing activities, often referred to as its ordinary operations. Transactions outside these ordinary activities don’t qualify as revenue; for instance, gains from selling an entity’s property, plant, or equipment are excluded. Distinguishing revenue from other forms of income can be complex, contingent upon the particular circumstances of each transaction.
Activity
A car dealership maintains a fleet of demonstration cars for potential customers to test drive. These cars are utilized for over a year before being sold as used vehicles. The dealership operates in both new and used car sales.
Question
Is the sale of a demonstration car accounted for as revenue or as a gain?
Answer
The car dealership is in the business of selling new and used cars. The sale of demonstration cars is therefore revenue, since selling used cars is part of the dealership’s ordinary activities.
IFRS 15 provides the following definitions for terms used in the Standard.
(a) a good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) that is distinct; or
(b) a series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and that have the same pattern of transfer to the customer”.
The initial step in implementing the revenue standard involves determining the presence of a contract with a customer that falls within the standard’s scope.
The fundamental unit of consideration is an individual contract with a customer. Alternatively, a practical shortcut known as the portfolio approach may be employed, allowing entities to apply the standard to a collection of contracts (or performance obligations). This approach could be deemed acceptable if an entity reasonably anticipates that applying it to a group of contracts or performance obligations wouldn’t significantly deviate from assessing each one individually. When employing a portfolio approach, entities should base estimates and assumptions on the size and makeup of the portfolio. Deciding on the appropriateness of using a portfolio approach demands judgment and thorough consideration of all relevant factors.
There are no industries completely excluded from the scope of the revenue standard. However, the revenue standard specifically excludes from its scope certain types of transactions:
Evaluation of non-monetary exchanges
Determining whether certain non-monetary exchanges are in the scope of the revenue standard could require judgement and depends on the facts of the arrangement.
Activity
Entity A operates as a road salt supplier. Fluctuations in demand due to adverse weather conditions can sometimes exceed Entity A’s available supply, prompting shortages on short notice. To mitigate this risk, Entity A engages in a reciprocal agreement with a road salt supplier in a different region. Under this arrangement, each party agrees to supply road salt to the other during local adverse weather events, as occurrences affecting one region seldom impact the other simultaneously. No additional considerations are exchanged between the parties.
Question
Is the contract in the scope of the revenue standard?
Answer
No, this arrangement falls outside the scope of the revenue standard. The standard explicitly excludes non-monetary exchanges within the same line of business aimed at facilitating sales to customers or potential customers from its scope.
Management needs to identify whether the contract counterparty is a customer since contracts that are not with customers are outside the scope of the revenue standard.
Revenue from transactions or events that do not arise from a contract with a customer is not in the scope of the revenue standard and should continue to be recognized by other standards. Such transactions or events include, but are not limited to:
Can an entity recognise revenue from a non-monetary transaction between entities in the same line of business that is excluded from the scope of IFRS 15?
Entities are not permitted to recognise revenue resulting from a non-monetary transaction that is subject to the scope exception in IFRS 15. As explained in IFRS 15, the party exchanging inventory with the entity in a transaction of this nature meets the definition of a customer and, in the absence of this specific scope exclusion, the entity might recognise revenue once for the exchange of inventory and do so again for the sale of inventory to the end customer. The Board concluded that this outcome would be inappropriate because
(1) it would gross up revenues and expenses and thereby make it difficult for the users of financial statements to assess the entity’s performance and gross margins, and
(2) the counterparty in such an exchange transaction could be viewed as acting as a supplier rather than as a customer.
Certain contracts comprise elements falling within the scope of the revenue standard alongside components covered by other standards. For instance, a contract might encompass a vendor-provided financial guarantee or a property lease, in addition to a commitment to deliver goods or services. When faced with such scenarios, an entity must initially refer to separation or measurement guidance provided in other relevant standards if they specify how to segregate contract components.The guidance outlined in the revenue standard is applied to initially separate and/or measure contract components only if no other standard offers specific guidance on separation or measurement.
Accounting for contracts partially in scope of the revenue standard
Before determining that an arrangement falls within the scope of the revenue standard, management must review all other possibly applicable accounting literature. If an arrangement is wholly covered by other guidance, it should be accounted for accordingly under that guidance. However, if another standard only pertains to a portion of the contract, management must undertake separation of the contract.
The transaction price, as defined, excludes the portion of contract consideration that is initially measured under other guidance.
Certain principles of the revenue standard extend to recognizing gains or losses from the transfer of specific non-financial assets and in-substance non-financial assets that aren’t outputs of an entity’s usual operations, like property, plant, and equipment sales or transfers. While gains or losses from such sales typically don’t meet the revenue definition, the entity should utilize revenue standard guidance concerning control transfer, transaction price measurement, and variable consideration constraints to determine when and how much gain or loss to recognize.
A customer refers to the party engaging with an entity to procure goods or services that constitute the entity’s typical outputs, in exchange for consideration.
Contracts involving both parties sharing risks and benefits in an activity, like asset development, are unlikely to fall within revenue guidance as the counter party typically doesn’t meet the customer definition.
Understanding relationships within collaboration or partnership agreements is crucial to discern whether the contract, in its entirety or partially, aligns with a customer contract. Some parts might involve sharing risks and benefits outside the revenue standard scope, while others pertain to goods or services sales, falling within the revenue standard ambit.
Identifying the customer (collaborative arrangement)
Entity B signs an agreement with entity C to share equally in the development of a specific drug candidate.
Question
Is the arrangement in the scope of the revenue standard?
Answer
The categorization varies. If the entities collaborate solely to develop the drug, it’s improbable for the arrangement to fall within the revenue standard’s scope. However, if the essence of the agreement involves entity B selling its compound to entity C and/or providing research and development services, aligning with entity B’s usual activities, it’s likely within the revenue standard’s purview.
Entities ought to assess the presence of other relevant guidance, like IFRS 11, particularly in cases where the arrangement constitutes a collaboration rather than a customer contract.
When pinpointing the customer, the assessment should encompass comprehending the essence of the relationship among all transaction participants. In cases where another party contributes goods or services to a customer, the entity must ascertain whether it acts as a principal (where its promise entails directly delivering the specified goods or services) or an agent (where its promise entails arranging for the other party to provide those goods or services).
Accounting for entitlement imbalances resulting from under-lift and over-lift of mineral resources of products
Entity A operates as a joint operator in an oil field, entitled to 50% of the generated output and accountable for 50% of the incurred costs throughout the field’s lifespan. Entity A acknowledges a 50% stake in jointly held assets and 50% of the collectively incurred liabilities and expenses. This encompasses recognising 50% of the joint operation’s inventory, which accumulates during the extraction, production, and transportation process, covering depreciation of property, plant, and equipment (representing oil reserves), along with direct and indirect overhead absorption.
Due to the oil field’s operational nature, parties involved take possession of oil batches or “liftings” at varying intervals. Consequently, Entity A’s actual output share in a reporting period may diverge from its 50% entitlement (and cost obligation) over the field’s lifespan. This disparity is rectified through subsequent liftings, without any customary cash settlements.
In the initial production period, 100 barrels of oil are extracted. Entity A claims 48 barrels, selling them to third-party customers for a total consideration of CU48, while the remaining 52 barrels are obtained by other joint operation participants. Hence, by the reporting date, Entity A holds an “underlift” position, entitling it to two barrels from future liftings.
In line with IFRS 15, Entity A records revenue as the principal from its oil sales to customers.
Recognition of revenue
Entity A should only record revenue for its sales of oil to third-party customers. It does not recognize revenue or other income for the output it is entitled to but has not yet received from the joint operation and sold.
As per IFRS 11, a joint operator must recognize “its revenue from the sale of its share of the output arising from the joint operation.” Subsequently, IFRS 11 mandates that revenues be accounted for in line with the applicable IFRS Standards, such as IFRS 15. Consequently, a joint operator’s recognized revenue reflects the output it has received from the joint operation and sold, rather than the production of output.
Hence, in the initial production period from the field, Entity A records revenue of CU48, representing the transfer of output to its customers during the reporting period.
Right to greater share of future liftings
Entity A must recognize an asset representing its current economic entitlement to additional oil, indicating its right to a greater share of future liftings. This asset, termed the “underlift” asset, should be measured on the same basis as the physical inventory relinquished at the point of lifting by other joint operators, both upon initial recognition and subsequently until settled via a future lifting.
Depending on its inventory accounting policy, Entity A will value its underlift asset either at net realizable value (if the IAS 2:3(a) scope exemption for agricultural and mineral product producers is applied) or at the lower of cost and net realizable value (if not).
If, in subsequent periods, Entity A takes more than 50% of the field’s output, resulting in equal cumulative liftings between the parties, it will derecognize the underlift asset. However, if Entity A continues to take more than 50% of the output, creating an “overlift” position where it is entitled to a lesser share of future liftings, it should recognize a liability representing its current obligation to transfer an economic resource by allowing other operators to take more of the future output. This liability should be valued either based on Entity A’s inventory and underlift balances or, referencing IAS 37, at the market value of the overlifted oil quantity.
As discussed earlier, Entity A’s revenues should solely reflect its sales of oil to third parties. Any profit or loss impact resulting from underlift or overlift positions should be included within its production costs.
Substitution rights and application of IFRS 15
When an entity grants a customer access to a specific asset for a duration but retains a substantive right to substitute the asset during that period, IFRS 16 specifies that the arrangement does not constitute a lease. Instead, it falls within the scope of IFRS 15.
For instance, Entity X lends a piece of machinery to Entity Y for three years, with annual payments, despite the machinery typically having a useful life of 20 years. Entity X does not provide ongoing services to Entity Y.
With a substantive substitution right, Entity X controls the asset’s use, rendering the arrangement non-lease. Thus, Entity X should account for the transaction following IFRS 15 requirements.
According to IFRS 15, Entity X is deemed to offer a service of providing access to the asset to Entity Y over time, as it retains the right to reclaim the machinery anytime. Therefore, each day Entity X extends usage to Entity Y, it provides another day of service.
Consequently, Entity X records revenue from the arrangement over the three-year period, typically using a straight-line method, and adheres to IFRS 15 disclosure requirements.
This approach remains valid regardless of the arrangement’s duration, even if it aligns with the machinery’s expected useful life.