Topic 301 - Revenue

IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

IAS 18 Revenue

• 301.5.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Revenue recognition in a real estate contract that includes the transfer of land

• 301.6.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Assessment of promised goods or services

• 301.7.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Principal versus Agent: Software Reseller

• 301.8.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Compensation for Delays or Cancellations

• 301.18.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Revenue recognition in a real estate contract

• 301.18.1.2

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Right to payment for performance completed to date

• 301.22.1.1

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Costs to Fulfil a Contract

• 301.22.1.2

• IFRIC Agenda Decision - Training Costs to Fulfil a Contract

301.5.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Revenue recognition in a real estate contract that includes the transfer of land

March 2018 - The Committee received a request about revenue recognition in a contract for the sale of land and a building to be constructed on the land. Specifically, the request asked (a) about the identification of performance obligations in the contract and (b) for each performance obligation identified, whether the real estate developer (entity) recognises revenue over time or at a point in time

Identifying performance obligations in the contract

Applying paragraphs 22⁠–⁠30, an entity identifies as a performance obligation each promise to transfer to the customer a good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) that is distinct, or a series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and that have the same pattern of transfer to the customer.

Paragraph 27 specifies that a good or service promised to a customer is distinct if:

The assessment of the criteria in paragraph 27 requires judgement.

Paragraph BC100 notes that an entity assesses the criterion in paragraph 27(a) based on the characteristics of the goods or services themselves. Accordingly, an entity disregards any contractual limitations that might preclude the customer from obtaining readily available resources from a source other than the entity.

Paragraph 29 explains that the objective underlying the criterion in paragraph 27(b) is to determine whether the nature of the promise, within the context of the contract, is to transfer each of the promised goods or services individually or, instead, to transfer a combined item to which those goods or services are inputs. Paragraph 29 also specifies some factors that indicate that two or more promises to transfer goods or services are not separately identifiable.

Paragraphs BC105, BC116J and BC116K note that the notion of ‘separately identifiable’ in paragraph 27(b) is influenced by the notion of separable risks (ie whether the risk an entity assumes to fulfil its obligation to transfer one of those promised goods or services to the customer is a risk that is inseparable from the risk relating to the transfer of the other promised goods or services). The evaluation of whether an entity’s promise is separately identifiable considers the relationship between the various goods or services within the contract in the context of the process of fulfilling the contract. Therefore, an entity considers the level of integration, interrelation or interdependence among the promises to transfer goods or services. Rather than considering whether one item, by its nature, depends on the other (ie whether two items have a functional relationship), an entity evaluates whether there is a transformative relationship between the two items in the process of fulfilling the contract. 

A real estate contract for the transfer of land and a building

The following paragraphs outline factors an entity considers in assessing whether, for a contract that involves the transfer of land and a building that the entity constructs on the land, the promise to transfer land is a separate performance obligation. The land represents all of the area on which the building will be constructed and the contract is for the entire building. Those paragraphs do not consider whether the entity identifies one or more performance obligations in relation to the transfer of the building.

When assessing the criterion in paragraph 27(a), the entity assesses whether the customer could benefit from the land on its own or together with other resources readily available to it. For example, could the customer hire another developer to construct a building on the land? Similarly, the entity assesses whether the customer could benefit from the construction of the building on its own or together with other resources readily available to it. For example, could the customer obtain the construction services from the entity or another developer without any transfer of land? In a contract for the transfer of an area of land and of an entire building to be constructed on the land, the Committee concluded that the land and the building are each capable of being distinct.

The entity then assesses the criterion in paragraph 27(b) and its underlying objective explained in paragraph 29 (ie determining whether the nature of the promise, within the context of the contract, is to transfer the land and the building individually or, instead, to transfer a combined item to which the land and building are inputs). In assessing the criterion in paragraph 27(b), the Committee observed that the entity considers, among other factors, the following:

The Committee concluded that the promise to transfer the land would be separately identifiable from the promise to construct the building on that land if the entity concluded that (a) its performance in constructing the building would be the same regardless of whether it also transferred the land; and (b) it would be able to fulfil its promise to construct the building even if it did not also transfer the land, and would be able to fulfil its promise to transfer the land even if it did not also construct the building.

In assessing the criterion in paragraph 27(b), paragraph BC116N notes that the factors in paragraph 29 are not intended to be criteria that an entity evaluates independently of the ‘separately identifiable’ principle in paragraph 27(b). In some instances, one or more of the factors may be less relevant to the evaluation of that principle.

Applying paragraph 35 of IFRS 15 

Paragraph 35 specifies that an entity transfers control of a good or service over time and, therefore, satisfies a performance obligation and recognises revenue over time, if any one (or more) of the three criteria in paragraph 35 is met. Paragraph 32 states that if an entity does not satisfy a performance obligation over time, it satisfies the performance obligation at a point in time. Accordingly, the Committee observed that, at contract inception for each performance obligation, an entity applies the criteria in paragraph 35 to determine whether it recognises revenue over time.

The Committee has included explanatory information about the application of paragraph 35 to real estate contracts in its Agenda decision ‘Revenue Recognition in a real estate contract’ published in March 2018.

Application of paragraph 35 to the fact pattern in the request

The assessment of whether to recognise revenue over time or at a point in time requires an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances of the contract, taking into account the legal environment within which the contract is enforceable. Accordingly, the outcome of an entity’s assessment depends on those particular facts and circumstances.

In the fact pattern described in the request, the contract includes the following features:

It is assumed that (i) all the criteria in paragraph 9 are met and (ii) the entity identifies two performance obligations applying paragraphs 22⁠–⁠30—a promise to transfer the land to the customer and a promise to construct the building on that land.

Application of paragraph 35 to the promise to transfer land

The entity’s performance transfers the land to the customer. The land is not consumed immediately and, thus, the criterion in paragraph 35(a) is not met. Nor does the entity’s performance create or enhance the land and, thus, the criteria in paragraphs 35(b) and 35(c) are not met.

Consequently, the entity recognises revenue for the transfer of the land to the customer at a point in time applying paragraph 38 of IFRS 15.

Application of paragraph 35 to the promise to construct the building

The criterion in paragraph 35(a) is not met because the entity’s performance creates an asset that is not consumed immediately.

Paragraph 35(b)

In assessing the criterion in paragraph 35(b), the entity assesses whether, as the building is being constructed, the customer has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the part-constructed building.

The customer controls the part-constructed building as it is being constructed because the customer has the following:

Accordingly, the criterion in paragraph 35(b) is met. The Board observed in paragraph BC129 that ‘in the case of a construction contract in which the entity is building on the customer’s land, the customer generally controls any work in progress arising from the entity’s performance’.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 provide an adequate basis for an entity to recognise revenue in the fact pattern described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

301.6.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Assessment of promised goods or services

January 2019 - The Committee received a request about the recognition of revenue by a stock exchange that provides a listing service to a customer. Specifically, the request asked whether the stock exchange promises to transfer an admission service that is distinct from the listing service. In the fact pattern described in the request, the stock exchange charges the customer a non-refundable upfront fee on initial listing and an ongoing listing fee. The upfront fee relates to activities the stock exchange undertakes at or near contract inception.

Paragraph 22 of IFRS 15 requires an entity to assess the goods or services promised in a contract with a customer and to identify performance obligations. A performance obligation is a promise to transfer to the customer either:

In paragraph BC87 of IFRS 15, the Board noted that before an entity can identify its performance obligations in a contract with a customer, the entity would first need to identify all the promised goods or services in that contract.

Paragraph 25 of IFRS 15 specifies that performance obligations do not include activities that an entity must undertake to fulfil a contract unless those activities transfer a good or service to a customer.

Paragraph B49 of IFRS 15 states that to identify performance obligations in contracts in which an entity charges a non-refundable upfront fee, the entity assesses whether the fee relates to the transfer of a promised good or service. In many cases, even though a non-refundable upfront fee relates to an activity that the entity is required to undertake at or near contract inception to fulfil the contract, that activity does not result in the transfer of a promised good or service to the customer.

Accordingly, the Committee noted that when an entity charges a customer a non-refundable upfront fee, the entity considers whether it transfers a promised good or service to the customer at or near contract inception or, instead, for example, whether any activities it performs at or near contract inception represent tasks to set up a contract.

Application of IFRS 15 to the fact pattern in the request

The assessment of the goods and services promised in a contract and the identification of performance obligations requires an assessment of the facts and circumstances of the contract.

Accordingly, the outcome of an entity’s assessment depends on those facts and circumstances.

In the fact pattern described in the request, the stock exchange charges the customer a non-refundable upfront fee and an ongoing listing fee. The stock exchange undertakes various activities at or near contract inception to enable admission to the exchange, such as:

• performing due diligence for new applications;
• reviewing the customer’s listing application (including assessing whether to accept the application);
• issuing reference numbers and tickers for the new security;
• processing the listing and admission to the market;
• publishing the security on the order book; and
• issuing the dealing notice on the admission date.

The Committee observed that the activities performed by the entity at or near contract inception are required to transfer the goods or services for which the customer has contracted—ie the service of being listed on the exchange. However, the entity’s performance of those activities does not transfer a service to the customer.

The Committee also observed that the listing service transferred to the customer is the same on initial listing and on all subsequent days for which the customer remains listed.

Based on the fact pattern described in the request, the Committee concluded that the stock exchange does not promise to transfer any good or service to the customer other than the service of being listed on the exchange.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 provide an adequate basis for an entity to assess the promised goods and services in a contract with a customer. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

301.7.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Principal versus Agent: Software Reseller

May 2022 - The Committee received a request asking whether, in applying IFRS 15, a reseller of software licences is a principal or agent. In the fact pattern described in the request:

1. the reseller has a distribution agreement with a software manufacturer that:
   1. gives the reseller the right to grant (sell) the manufacturer’s standard software licences to customers;
   2. requires the reseller to provide pre-sales advice to each customer—before the sale of the software licences—to identify the type and number of software licences that would meet the customer’s needs; and
   3. provides the reseller with discretion in pricing the software licences for sale to customers.
2. if the customer decides:
   1. to buy no software licences, it pays nothing. The reseller and the customer do not enter into an agreement.
   2. to buy a specified type and number of software licences, the reseller negotiates the selling price with the customer, places an order with the software manufacturer on behalf of the customer (and pays the manufacturer), and invoices the customer for the agreed price.
3. the software manufacturer provides the customer with the software licences ordered—issued in the customer’s name—via a software portal and with the key necessary for activation. The software manufacturer and the customer enter into an agreement specifying the customer’s right to use the software, a warranty covering the software’s functionality and the term of the licence.
4. if the reseller advises the customer to order an incorrect type or number of software licences (that fails to meet the customer’s needs), the customer may not accept the licences. The reseller is unable to return unaccepted licences to the software manufacturer or sell them to another customer.

Applicable requirements in IFRS 15—Principal versus agent considerations

Paragraphs B34–B38 set out a framework to determine whether an entity is a principal or agent. When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, an entity determines whether the nature of its promise is a performance obligation to provide the specified goods or services itself (the entity is a principal) or to arrange for those goods or services to be provided by the other party (the entity is an agent).

Paragraph B34A states that determining the nature of its promise requires an entity to:

1. identify the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer. A specified good or service is a distinct good or service (or a distinct bundle of goods or services) to be provided to the customer (paragraph B34); and
2. assess whether it controls each specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to the customer.

An entity is a principal if it controls the specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to a customer (paragraph B35). An entity that is an agent does not control the specified good or service provided by another party before that good or service is transferred to the customer (paragraph B36).

Identifying the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer

The first step in identifying the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer is to assess the goods or services promised in the contract with the customer. A contract with a customer generally explicitly states the goods or services that an entity promises to provide to a customer. However, the contract may also include promises that are implied by an entity’s customary business practices, published policies or specific statements if, at the time of entering into the contract, those promises create a valid expectation of the customer that the entity will transfer a good or service to the customer (paragraph 24).

Having assessed the goods or services promised in the contract with the customer, an entity then identifies—applying paragraphs 27–30—each distinct good or service (or distinct bundle of goods or services) to be provided to the customer.

Assessing whether an entity controls each specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to the customer

When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, paragraph B35A sets out the circumstances in which an entity is a principal—one of which is when the entity obtains control of a good or another asset from the other party that it then transfers to the customer. Control of an asset refers to the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset; control includes the ability to prevent other entities from directing the use of, and obtaining the benefits from, an asset (paragraph 33).

Paragraph B37 sets out indicators to help an entity determine whether it is a principal or agent. Such indicators include, but are not limited to: (a) primary responsibility for fulfilling the promise to provide the specified good or service; (b) inventory risk before the specified good or service has been transferred to the customer or after transfer of control to the customer; and (c) discretion in establishing the price for the specified good or service. The indicators may be more or less relevant to the assessment of control depending on the nature of the specified good or service and the terms and conditions of the contract, and different indicators may provide more persuasive evidence in different contracts (paragraph B37A).

Applying IFRS 15 to the fact pattern described in the request

Identifying the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer

In the fact pattern described in the request, the reseller’s contract with the customer includes an explicit promise to provide a specified type and number of standard software licences to the customer.

The Committee observed that the pre-sales advice the reseller provides—under the distribution agreement between the software manufacturer and the reseller—is not an implicit promise in the contract with the customer. At the time of entering into the contract with the customer, the reseller has already provided the advice. There is no further advice to be provided by the reseller and the advice already provided will not be transferred to the customer after contract inception. Consequently, at the time of entering into the contract with the customer, there is no valid expectation of the customer that the reseller will transfer a good or service to the customer other than the standard software licences.

Accordingly, the Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the promised goods in the reseller’s contract with the customer are the standard software licences. Because the standard software licences are the only promised goods in the contract with the customer, they are distinct goods to be provided to the customer. Those licences are therefore the specified goods to be provided to the customer as described in paragraph B34A(a).

Assessing whether the reseller controls the standard software licences before they are transferred to the customer

In the fact pattern described in the request, the reseller assesses whether it obtains control of the standard software licences from the software manufacturer before they are transferred to the customer. That assessment of control requires consideration of the specific facts and circumstances, which include the terms and conditions of the contracts between the reseller and the customer, the reseller and the software manufacturer, and the software manufacturer and the customer.

If—after applying the principles and requirements on control in IFRS 15—it is unclear whether the reseller is a principal or agent, the reseller considers the indicators in paragraph B37 in assessing whether it obtains control of the standard software licences from the software manufacturer before they are transferred to the customer. In the fact pattern described in the request, the Committee observed that:

1. the software licences provided to the customer exist only after the reseller places an order with the software manufacturer and the software manufacturer issues the software licences in the customer’s name. The software manufacturer is responsible for the software’s functionality, as well as for issuing and activating the licences. The software manufacturer is therefore responsible in those respects for fulfilling the promise to provide the licences to the customer (paragraph B37(a)).
2. the reseller is the party that engages with the customer before and after the software licences are provided to the customer, taking responsibility for unaccepted licences. The reseller is therefore responsible in those respects for fulfilling the promise to provide the licences to the customer (paragraph B37(a)).
3. the reseller does not obtain a pool of software licences before entering into the contract with the customer and cannot, for example, direct the software licences to another customer. The reseller therefore has no inventory risk before the licences are provided to the customer but then has inventory risk until the customer accepts the licences (paragraph B37(b)).
4. the reseller has discretion in establishing the price for the software licences (paragraph B37(c)). Pricing discretion may be less relevant to the assessment of control if, for example, the market for the software licences is such that the reseller, in effect, has limited flexibility in establishing the price.

The Committee observed that the conclusion as to whether the reseller is a principal or agent depends on the specific facts and circumstances, including the terms and conditions of the relevant contracts. The reseller would apply judgement in making its overall assessment of whether it is a principal or agent—including considering the relevance of the indicators to the assessment of control and the degree to which they provide evidence of control of the standard software licences before they are transferred to the customer—within the context of the framework and requirements set out in paragraphs B34–B38 of IFRS 15.

The Committee also observed that the reseller would disclose (a) material accounting policy information in accordance with IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, and (b) information required by IFRS 15, including about its performance obligations (paragraph 119) and the judgements made in applying IFRS 15 that significantly affect the determination of the amount and timing of revenue from contracts with customers (paragraph 123).

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Accounting Standards provide an adequate basis for a reseller to determine whether—in the fact pattern described in the request—it is a principal or agent for the standard software licences provided to a customer. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.

Back to sub-topic index

301.8.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Compensation for Delays or Cancellations

September 2019 - The Committee received a request about an airline’s obligation to compensate customers for delayed or cancelled flights. In the fact pattern described in the request:

The request asked whether the entity accounts for its obligation to compensate customers either: (a) as variable consideration applying paragraphs 50⁠–⁠59 of IFRS 15; or (b) applying IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, separately from its performance obligation to transfer a flight service to the customer.

Paragraph 47 of IFRS 15 requires an entity to ‘consider the terms of the contract and its customary business practices in determining the transaction price. The transaction price is the amount of consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or services to a customer…The consideration promised in a contract with a customer may include fixed amounts, variable amounts, or both’. Paragraph 51 of IFRS 15 lists examples of common types of variable consideration—‘discounts, rebates, refunds, credits, price concessions, incentives, performance bonuses, penalties or other similar items’.

Paragraph B33 of IFRS 15 specifies requirements for an entity’s obligation to pay compensation to a customer if its products cause harm or damage. An entity accounts for such an obligation applying IAS 37, separately from its performance obligation in the contract with the customer.

The Committee observed that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the entity promises to transport the customer from one specified location to another within a specified time period after the scheduled flight time. If the entity fails to do so, the customer is entitled to compensation. Accordingly, any compensation for delays or cancellations forms part of the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised service to the customer; it does not represent compensation for harm or damage caused by the entity’s products as described in paragraph B33. The fact that legislation, rather than the contract, stipulates the compensation payable does not affect the entity’s determination of the transaction price—the compensation gives rise to variable consideration in the same way that penalties for delayed transfer of an asset give rise to variable consideration as illustrated in Example 20 of the Illustrative Examples accompanying IFRS 15.

Consequently, the Committee concluded that compensation for delays or cancellations, as described in the request, is variable consideration in the contract. Accordingly, the entity applies the requirements in paragraphs 50⁠–⁠59 of IFRS 15 in accounting for its obligation to compensate customers for delays or cancellations. The Committee did not consider the question of whether the amount of compensation recognised as a reduction of revenue is limited to reducing the transaction price to nil.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine its accounting for obligations to compensate customers for delays or cancellations. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

301.18.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Revenue recognition in a real estate contract

March 2018 - The Committee received a request about revenue recognition in a contract for the sale of a unit in a residential multi-unit complex. Specifically, the request asked about the application of paragraph 35 of IFRS 15, which specifies when an entity recognises revenue over time. 

Identifying the contract

An entity accounts for contracts within the scope of IFRS 15 only when all the criteria in paragraph 9 are met. One of these criteria is that it is probable that the entity will collect the consideration to which it will be entitled in exchange for the goods or services that will be transferred to the customer. Accordingly, an entity applies the requirements in paragraphs 22-30 and paragraphs 35-37 discussed in this agenda decision only to contracts for which the criteria in paragraph 9 are met. 

Identifying performance obligations in the contract 

Before applying paragraph 35, an entity applies paragraphs 22⁠–⁠30 in identifying as a performance obligation each promise to transfer to the customer a good or service that is distinct. The Committee has included explanatory information about the application of paragraphs 22⁠–⁠30 to real estate contracts in its Agenda decision ‘Revenue Recognition in a Real Estate Contract that Includes the Transfer of Land’ published in March 2018. 

Applying paragraph 35 of IFRS 15 

Paragraph 35 specifies that an entity transfers control of a good or service over time and, therefore, satisfies a performance obligation and recognises revenue over time, if any one (or more) of the three criteria in paragraph 35 is met. Paragraph 32 states that if an entity does not satisfy a performance obligation over time, it satisfies the performance obligation at a point in time. Accordingly, the Committee observed that, at contract inception for each performance obligation, an entity applies the criteria in paragraph 35 to determine whether it recognises revenue over time. 

Paragraph 35(a) 

Applying paragraph 35(a), an entity recognises revenue over time if the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits provided by the entity’s performance as the entity performs. In a contract for the sale of real estate that the entity constructs, the Committee observed that paragraph 35(a) is not applicable because the entity’s performance creates an asset, ie the real estate, that is not consumed immediately. 

Paragraph 35(b) 

Applying paragraph 35(b), an entity recognises revenue over time if the customer controls the asset an entity’s performance creates or enhances as the asset is created or enhanced. Control refers to the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset.

Paragraph BC129 explains that the Board included the criterion in paragraph 35(b) to ‘address situations in which an entity’s performance creates or enhances an asset that a customer clearly controls as the asset is created or enhanced’. Accordingly, the Committee observed that, in applying paragraph 35(b), an entity assesses whether there is evidence that the customer clearly controls the asset that is being created or enhanced (for example, the part-constructed real estate) as it is created or enhanced. An entity considers all relevant factors in making this assessment—no one factor is determinative.

In applying paragraph 35(b), it is important to apply the requirements for control to the asset that the entity’s performance creates or enhances. In a contract for the sale of real estate that the entity constructs, the asset created is the real estate itself. It is not, for example, the right to obtain the real estate in the future. The right to sell or pledge a right to obtain real estate in the future is not evidence of control of the real estate itself. 

Paragraph 35(c) 

Paragraph BC131 explains that the Board developed a third criterion in paragraph 35(c) for recognising revenue over time because it observed that in some cases it may be unclear whether the asset that is created or enhanced is controlled by the customer. The underlying objective of the criterion in paragraph 35(c) is to determine whether the entity transfers control of goods or services to the customer as an asset is being created for that customer (paragraph BC143).

Applying paragraph 35(c), an entity recognises revenue over time if: 

Paragraph 36 specifies that the asset created does not have an alternative use to an entity if the entity is restricted contractually from readily directing the asset for another use during the creation of that asset or limited practically from readily directing the asset in its completed state for another use.

Paragraph 37 states that, to have an enforceable right to payment, at all times throughout the duration of the contract the entity must be entitled to an amount that at least compensates the entity for performance completed to date if the contract is terminated by the customer or another party for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised. Paragraph B12 states that in assessing whether an entity has an enforceable right to payment, the entity considers the contractual terms as well as any legislation or legal precedent that could supplement or override those contractual terms. This would include an assessment of whether relevant legal precedent indicates that similar rights to payment for performance completed to date in similar contracts have no binding legal effect.

The Committee observed that, although an entity need not undertake an exhaustive search for evidence, it would be inappropriate for an entity to either ignore evidence of relevant legal precedent available to it or anticipate evidence that may or may not become available in the future.

The Committee also observed that the assessment of enforceable rights as described in paragraph 35(c) is focussed on the existence of the right and its enforceability. The likelihood that the entity would exercise the right is not relevant to this assessment. Similarly, if a customer has the right to terminate the contract, the likelihood that the customer would terminate the contract is not relevant to this assessment.

Application of paragraph 35 to the fact pattern in the request 

The assessment of whether to recognise revenue over time or at a point in time requires an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances of the contract, taking into account the legal environment within which the contract is enforceable. Accordingly, the outcome of an entity’s assessment depends on those particular facts and circumstances. 

In the fact pattern described in the request, the contract includes the following features:

The request also notes the following:

The courts’ acceptance of requests for cancellation provides evidence of legal precedent. This legal precedent is relevant to the assessment of the entity’s enforceable right to payment as described in paragraph 35(c). It is assumed that the evidence of legal precedent is assessed as sufficient to indicate that the entity is not entitled to an amount that at least compensates it for performance completed to date in the event of cancellation for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised.

It is also assumed that all the criteria in paragraph 9 are met and that the entity identifies a single performance obligation applying paragraphs 22⁠–⁠30.

The criterion in paragraph 35(a) is not met because the entity’s performance creates an asset that is not consumed immediately. 

Paragraph 35(b) 

The entity’s performance creates the real estate unit under construction. Accordingly, in applying paragraph 35(b) the entity assesses whether, as the unit is being constructed, the customer has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the part-constructed real estate unit. The Committee observed the following: 

The Committee observed that there is no evidence that the customer has the ability to direct the use of the real estate unit as it is being constructed, and thus the customer does not control the part-constructed unit. Consequently, the criterion in paragraph 35(b) is not met. 

In the Agenda decision ‘Revenue recognition in a real estate contract that includes the transfer of land’ published in March 2018, the Committee discusses a fact pattern involving the construction of real estate for which it concludes the criterion in paragraph 35(b) is met. 

Paragraph 35(c) 

The entity cannot change or substitute the real estate unit specified in the contract with the customer, and thus the customer could enforce its rights to the unit if the entity sought to direct the asset for another use. Accordingly, the contractual restriction is substantive and the real estate unit does not have an alternative use to the entity as described in paragraph 35(c).

The entity, however, does not have an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date as described in paragraph 35(c). This is because, in the fact pattern described in the request, there is relevant legal precedent indicating that the entity is not entitled to an amount that at least compensates it for performance completed to date in the event of cancellation for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised. In the event of the courts accepting requests to cancel contracts, the entity is entitled only to a termination penalty that does not compensate the entity for performance completed to date. 

Based on the fact pattern described in the request, the Committee concluded that none of the criteria in paragraph 35 of IFRS 15 are met. Accordingly, the entity would recognise revenue at a point in time applying paragraph 38 of IFRS 15. 

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether to recognise revenue over time or at a point in time for a contract for the sale of real estate. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

301.18.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Right to payment for performance completed to date

March 2018 - The Committee received a request about whether to recognise revenue over time or at a point in time in relation to a contract for the sale of a unit in a residential multi-unit complex (real estate unit). Specifically, the request asked whether, in the fact pattern described in the request, the real estate developer (entity) has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date as described in paragraph 35(c) of IFRS 15.

Applying paragraph 35(c), an entity recognises revenue over time if (i) the asset created by an entity’s performance does not have an alternative use to the entity; and (ii) the entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date. The underlying objective of the criterion in paragraph 35(c) is to determine whether the entity transfers control of goods or services to the customer as an asset is being created for that customer (paragraph BC143).

Paragraph 37 states that, to have an enforceable right to payment, at all times throughout the duration of the contract, the entity must be entitled to an amount that at least compensates the entity for performance completed to date if the contract is terminated by the customer or another party for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised.

Paragraph B9 states that an amount that would compensate an entity for performance completed to date would be an amount that approximates the selling price of the goods or services transferred to date, rather than compensation for only the entity’s potential loss of profit if the contract were to be terminated.

The Committee observed that it is the payment the entity is entitled to receive under the contract with the customer relating to performance under that contract that is relevant in determining whether the entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date.

The Committee has also included explanatory information about the application of paragraph 35(c) to real estate contracts in its Agenda decision ‘Revenue Recognition in a Real Estate Contract’ published in March 2018.

Application of paragraph 35(c) to the fact pattern in the request

The assessment of whether an entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date requires an entity to consider the rights and obligations created by the contract, taking into account the legal environment within which the contract is enforceable. Accordingly, the Committee observed that the outcome of an entity’s assessment depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the contract.

In the fact pattern described in the request, the contract includes the following features:

It is assumed that the entity identifies a single performance obligation applying paragraphs 22-30. It is also assumed that (i) the entity has determined that the contract does not meet the criteria in paragraphs 35(a) and 35(b); and (ii) the contract meets the first part of the criterion in paragraph 35(c) because the entity’s performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to the entity.

The Committee observed that the principle in paragraph 31 of IFRS 15 for the recognition of revenue requires the customer to have obtained control of a promised good or service. Accordingly and as noted above, the underlying objective of the criterion in paragraph 35(c) is to determine whether the entity is transferring control of goods or services to the customer as an asset is being created for that customer. In line with this objective, it is the payment the entity is entitled to receive under the existing contract with the customer relating to performance under that contract that is relevant in determining whether the entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date. The consideration received by the entity from the third party in the resale contract is consideration relating to that resale contract—it is not payment for performance under the existing contract with the customer.

In the fact pattern described in the request, the payment to which the entity has a right under the existing contract with the customer is a payment for the difference between the resale price of the unit, if any, and its original purchase price (plus selling costs). That payment does not at all times throughout the duration of the contract entitle the entity to an amount that at least approximates the selling price of the part-constructed real estate unit and, thus, it does not compensate the entity for performance completed to date. Accordingly, the entity does not have an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date as described in paragraph 35(c) of IFRS 15.

Based on the fact pattern described in the request, the Committee concluded that none of the criteria in paragraph 35 of IFRS 15 are met. Accordingly, the entity would recognise revenue at a point in time applying paragraph 38 of IFRS 15.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether it has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

301.22.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Costs to Fulfil a Contract

June 2019 - The Committee received a request about the recognition of costs incurred to fulfil a contract as an entity satisfies a performance obligation in the contract over time. In the fact pattern described in the request, the entity (a) transfers control of a good over time (ie one (or more) of the criteria in paragraph 35 of IFRS 15 is met) and, therefore, satisfies a performance obligation and recognises revenue over time; and (b) measures progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation using an output method applying paragraphs 39⁠–⁠43 of IFRS 15. The entity incurs costs in constructing the good. At the reporting date, the costs incurred relate to construction work performed on the good that is transferring to the customer as the good is being constructed.

The Committee first noted the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 relating to the measurement of progress towards complete satisfaction of a performance obligation satisfied over time. Paragraph 39 states that ‘the objective when measuring progress is to depict an entity’s performance in transferring control of goods or services promised to a customer’. The Committee also observed that when evaluating whether to apply an output method to measure progress, paragraph B15 requires an entity to ‘consider whether the output selected would faithfully depict the entity’s performance towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation’.

In considering the recognition of costs, the Committee noted that paragraph 98(c) of IFRS 15 requires an entity to recognise as expenses when incurred ‘costs that relate to satisfied performance obligations (or partially satisfied performance obligations) in the contract (ie costs that relate to past performance)’.

The Committee observed that the costs of construction described in the request are costs that relate to the partially satisfied performance obligation in the contract—ie they are costs that relate to the entity’s past performance. Those costs do not, therefore, generate or enhance resources of the entity that will be used in continuing to satisfy the performance obligation in the future (paragraph 95(b)). Consequently, those costs do not meet the criteria in paragraph 95 of IFRS 15 to be recognised as an asset. 

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine how to recognise costs incurred in fulfilling a contract in the fact pattern described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

301.22.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Training Costs to Fulfil a Contract

March 2020 - The Committee received a request about training costs incurred to fulfil a contract with a customer. In the fact pattern described in the request:

The request asked whether the entity recognises the training costs as an asset or an expense when incurred.

Which IFRS Standard applies to the training costs?

Paragraph 95 of IFRS 15 requires an entity to recognise an asset from the costs incurred to fulfil a contract with a customer if the costs are not within the scope of another IFRS Standard, and only if those costs meet all three criteria specified in paragraph 95. Consequently, before assessing the criteria in paragraph 95, the entity first considers whether the training costs incurred to fulfil the contract are within the scope of another IFRS Standard.

Paragraphs 2⁠–⁠7 of IAS 38 describe the scope of that Standard—paragraph 5 explicitly includes expenditure on training within IAS 38’s scope, stating that IAS 38 ‘applies to, among other things, expenditure on advertising, training, start-up, research and development activities’. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the entity applies IAS 38 in accounting for the training costs incurred to fulfil the contract with the customer.

Application of IAS 38

Paragraph 69(b) of IAS 38 includes expenditure on training activities as an example of expenditure that is incurred ‘to provide future economic benefits to an entity, but no intangible asset or other asset is acquired or created that can be recognised’. Consequently, paragraph 69 states that such expenditure on training activities is recognised as an expense when incurred. Paragraph 15 of IAS 38 explains that ‘an entity usually has insufficient control over the expected future economic benefits arising from a team of skilled staff and from training for these items to meet the definition of an intangible asset’.

In addition, in explaining the requirements in IFRS 15 regarding costs to fulfil a contract, paragraph BC307 of IFRS 15 states that ‘if the other Standards preclude the recognition of any asset arising from a particular cost, an asset cannot then be recognised under IFRS 15’.

Accordingly, the Committee concluded that, in the fact pattern described in the request, the entity recognises the training costs to fulfil the contract with the customer as an expense when incurred. The Committee noted that the entity’s ability to charge to the customer the costs of training does not affect that conclusion.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 15 and IAS 38 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine its accounting for training costs incurred to fulfil a contract with a customer. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index