Appendix B (AASB15_12-14_COMPmar20_07-21)

This appendix is an integral part of AASB 15. It describes the application of paragraphs 1–129 and has the same authority as the other parts of AASB 15.

This application guidance is organised into the following categories:

(a)            performance obligations satisfied over time (paragraphs B2-B13);

(b)            methods for measuring progress towards complete satisfaction of a performance obligation (paragraphs B14–B19);

(c)            sale with a right of return (paragraphs B20–B27);

(d)            warranties (paragraphs B28–B33);

(e)            principal versus agent considerations (paragraphs B34–B38);

(f)            customer options for additional goods or services (paragraphs B39–B43);

(g)            customers’ unexercised rights (paragraphs B44–B47);

(h)            non-refundable upfront fees (and some related costs) (paragraphs B48–B51);

(i)             licensing (paragraphs B52–B63B);

(j)             repurchase agreements (paragraphs B64–B76);

(k)            consignment arrangements (paragraphs B77–B78);

(l)             bill-and-hold arrangements (paragraphs B79–B82);

(m)           customer acceptance (paragraphs B83–B86); and

(n)            disclosure of disaggregated revenue (paragraphs B87–B89).

In accordance with paragraph 35, a performance obligation is satisfied over time if one of the following criteria is met:

(a)            the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits provided by the entity’s performance as the entity performs (see paragraphs B3–B4);

(b)            the entity’s performance creates or enhances an asset (for example, work in progress) that the customer controls as the asset is created or enhanced (see paragraph B5); or

(c)            the entity’s performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to the entity (see paragraphs B6–B8) and the entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date (see paragraphs B9–B13).

For some types of performance obligations, the assessment of whether a customer receives the benefits of an entity’s performance as the entity performs and simultaneously consumes those benefits as they are received will be straightforward. Examples include routine or recurring services (such as a cleaning service) in which the receipt and simultaneous consumption by the customer of the benefits of the entity’s performance can be readily identified.

For other types of performance obligations, an entity may not be able to readily identify whether a customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits from the entity’s performance as the entity performs. In those circumstances, a performance obligation is satisfied over time if an entity determines that another entity would not need to substantially re-perform the work that the entity has completed to date if that other entity were to fulfil the remaining performance obligation to the customer. In determining whether another entity would not need to substantially re-perform the work the entity has completed to date, an entity shall make both of the following assumptions:

(a)            disregard potential contractual restrictions or practical limitations that otherwise would prevent the entity from transferring the remaining performance obligation to another entity; and

(b)            presume that another entity fulfilling the remainder of the performance obligation would not have the benefit of any asset that is presently controlled by the entity and that would remain controlled by the entity if the performance obligation were to transfer to another entity.

In determining whether a customer controls an asset as it is created or enhanced in accordance with paragraph 35(b), an entity shall apply the requirements for control in paragraphs 31–34 and 38. The asset that is being created or enhanced (for example, a work-in-progress asset) could be either tangible or intangible.

In assessing whether an asset has an alternative use to an entity in accordance with paragraph 36, an entity shall consider the effects of contractual restrictions and practical limitations on the entity’s ability to readily direct that asset for another use, such as selling it to a different customer. The possibility of the contract with the customer being terminated is not a relevant consideration in assessing whether the entity would be able to readily direct the asset for another use.

A contractual restriction on an entity’s ability to direct an asset for another use must be substantive for the asset not to have an alternative use to the entity. A contractual restriction is substantive if a customer could enforce its rights to the promised asset if the entity sought to direct the asset for another use. In contrast, a contractual restriction is not substantive if, for example, an asset is largely interchangeable with other assets that the entity could transfer to another customer without breaching the contract and without incurring significant costs that otherwise would not have been incurred in relation to that contract.

A practical limitation on an entity’s ability to direct an asset for another use exists if an entity would incur significant economic losses to direct the asset for another use. A significant economic loss could arise because the entity either would incur significant costs to rework the asset or would only be able to sell the asset at a significant loss. For example, an entity may be practically limited from redirecting assets that either have design specifications that are unique to a customer or are located in remote areas.

In accordance with paragraph 37, an entity has a right to payment for performance completed to date if the entity would be entitled to an amount that at least compensates the entity for its performance completed to date in the event that the customer or another party terminates the contract for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised. 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 (for example, recovery of the costs incurred by an entity in satisfying the performance obligation plus a reasonable profit margin) rather than compensation for only the entity’s potential loss of profit if the contract were to be terminated. Compensation for a reasonable profit margin need not equal the profit margin expected if the contract was fulfilled as promised, but an entity should be entitled to compensation for either of the following amounts:

(a)            a proportion of the expected profit margin in the contract that reasonably reflects the extent of the entity’s performance under the contract before termination by the customer (or another party); or

(b)            a reasonable return on the entity’s cost of capital for similar contracts (or the entity’s typical operating margin for similar contracts) if the contract-specific margin is higher than the return the entity usually generates from similar contracts.

An entity’s right to payment for performance completed to date need not be a present unconditional right to payment. In many cases, an entity will have an unconditional right to payment only at an agreed-upon milestone or upon complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. In assessing whether it has a right to payment for performance completed to date, an entity shall consider whether it would have an enforceable right to demand or retain payment for performance completed to date if the contract were to be terminated before completion for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised.

In some contracts, a customer may have a right to terminate the contract only at specified times during the life of the contract or the customer might not have any right to terminate the contract. If a customer acts to terminate a contract without having the right to terminate the contract at that time (including when a customer fails to perform its obligations as promised), the contract (or other laws) might entitle the entity to continue to transfer to the customer the goods or services promised in the contract and require the customer to pay the consideration promised in exchange for those goods or services. In those circumstances, an entity has a right to payment for performance completed to date because the entity has a right to continue to perform its obligations in accordance with the contract and to require the customer to perform its obligations (which include paying the promised consideration).

In assessing the existence and enforceability of a right to payment for performance completed to date, an entity shall consider 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:

(a)            legislation, administrative practice or legal precedent confers upon the entity a right to payment for performance to date even though that right is not specified in the contract with the customer;

(b)            relevant legal precedent indicates that similar rights to payment for performance completed to date in similar contracts have no binding legal effect; or

(c)            an entity’s customary business practices of choosing not to enforce a right to payment has resulted in the right being rendered unenforceable in that legal environment. However, notwithstanding that an entity may choose to waive its right to payment in similar contracts, an entity would continue to have a right to payment to date if, in the contract with the customer, its right to payment for performance to date remains enforceable.

The payment schedule specified in a contract does not necessarily indicate whether an entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date. Although the payment schedule in a contract specifies the timing and amount of consideration that is payable by a customer, the payment schedule might not necessarily provide evidence of the entity’s right to payment for performance completed to date. This is because, for example, the contract could specify that the consideration received from the customer is refundable for reasons other than the entity failing to perform as promised in the contract.

Methods that can be used to measure an entity’s progress towards complete satisfaction of a performance obligation satisfied over time in accordance with paragraphs 35–37 include the following:

(a)            output methods (see paragraphs B15–B17); and

(b)            input methods (see paragraphs B18–B19).

Output methods recognise revenue on the basis of direct measurements of the value to the customer of the goods or services transferred to date relative to the remaining goods or services promised under the contract. Output methods include methods such as surveys of performance completed to date, appraisals of results achieved, milestones reached, time elapsed and units produced or units delivered. When an entity evaluates whether to apply an output method to measure its progress, the entity shall consider whether the output selected would faithfully depict the entity’s performance towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. An output method would not provide a faithful depiction of the entity’s performance if the output selected would fail to measure some of the goods or services for which control has transferred to the customer. For example, output methods based on units produced or units delivered would not faithfully depict an entity’s performance in satisfying a performance obligation if, at the end of the reporting period, the entity’s performance has produced work in progress or finished goods controlled by the customer that are not included in the measurement of the output.

As a practical expedient, if an entity has a right to consideration from a customer in an amount that corresponds directly with the value to the customer of the entity’s performance completed to date (for example, a service contract in which an entity bills a fixed amount for each hour of service provided), the entity may recognise revenue in the amount to which the entity has a right to invoice.

The disadvantages of output methods are that the outputs used to measure progress may not be directly observable and the information required to apply them may not be available to an entity without undue cost. Therefore, an input method may be necessary.

Input methods recognise revenue on the basis of the entity’s efforts or inputs to the satisfaction of a performance obligation (for example, resources consumed, labour hours expended, costs incurred, time elapsed or machine hours used) relative to the total expected inputs to the satisfaction of that performance obligation. If the entity’s efforts or inputs are expended evenly throughout the performance period, it may be appropriate for the entity to recognise revenue on a straight-line basis.

A shortcoming of input methods is that there may not be a direct relationship between an entity’s inputs and the transfer of control of goods or services to a customer. Therefore, an entity shall exclude from an input method the effects of any inputs that, in accordance with the objective of measuring progress in paragraph 39, do not depict the entity’s performance in transferring control of goods or services to the customer. For instance, when using a cost-based input method, an adjustment to the measure of progress may be required in the following circumstances:

(a)            When a cost incurred does not contribute to an entity’s progress in satisfying the performance obligation. For example, an entity would not recognise revenue on the basis of costs incurred that are attributable to significant inefficiencies in the entity’s performance that were not reflected in the price of the contract (for example, the costs of unexpected amounts of wasted materials, labour or other resources that were incurred to satisfy the performance obligation).

(b)            When a cost incurred is not proportionate to the entity’s progress in satisfying the performance obligation. In those circumstances, the best depiction of the entity’s performance may be to adjust the input method to recognise revenue only to the extent of that cost incurred. For example, a faithful depiction of an entity’s performance might be to recognise revenue at an amount equal to the cost of a good used to satisfy a performance obligation if the entity expects at contract inception that all of the following conditions would be met:

(i)             the good is not distinct;

(ii)            the customer is expected to obtain control of the good significantly before receiving services related to the good;

(iii)           the cost of the transferred good is significant relative to the total expected costs to completely satisfy the performance obligation; and

(iv)           the entity procures the good from a third party and is not significantly involved in designing and manufacturing the good (but the entity is acting as a principal in accordance with paragraphs B34–B38).

In some contracts, an entity transfers control of a product to a customer and also grants the customer the right to return the product for various reasons (such as dissatisfaction with the product) and receive any combination of the following:

(a)            a full or partial refund of any consideration paid;

(b)            a credit that can be applied against amounts owed, or that will be owed, to the entity; and

(c)            another product in exchange.

To account for the transfer of products with a right of return (and for some services that are provided subject to a refund), an entity shall recognise all of the following:

(a)            revenue for the transferred products in the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled (therefore, revenue would not be recognised for the products expected to be returned);

(b)            a refund liability; and

(c)            an asset (and corresponding adjustment to cost of sales) for its right to recover products from customers on settling the refund liability.

An entity’s promise to stand ready to accept a returned product during the return period shall not be accounted for as a performance obligation in addition to the obligation to provide a refund.

An entity shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 47–72 (including the requirements for constraining estimates of variable consideration in paragraphs 56–58) to determine the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled (ie excluding the products expected to be returned). For any amounts received (or receivable) for which an entity does not expect to be entitled, the entity shall not recognise revenue when it transfers products to customers but shall recognise those amounts received (or receivable) as a refund liability. Subsequently, at the end of each reporting period, the entity shall update its assessment of amounts for which it expects to be entitled in exchange for the transferred products and make a corresponding change to the transaction price and, therefore, in the amount of revenue recognised.

An entity shall update the measurement of the refund liability at the end of each reporting period for changes in expectations about the amount of refunds. An entity shall recognise corresponding adjustments as revenue (or reductions of revenue).

An asset recognised for an entity’s right to recover products from a customer on settling a refund liability shall initially be measured by reference to the former carrying amount of the product (for example, inventory) less any expected costs to recover those products (including potential decreases in the value to the entity of returned products). At the end of each reporting period, an entity shall update the measurement of the asset arising from changes in expectations about products to be returned. An entity shall present the asset separately from the refund liability.

Exchanges by customers of one product for another of the same type, quality, condition and price (for example, one colour or size for another) are not considered returns for the purposes of applying this Standard.

Contracts in which a customer may return a defective product in exchange for a functioning product shall be evaluated in accordance with the guidance on warranties in paragraphs B28–B33.

It is common for an entity to provide (in accordance with the contract, the law or the entity’s customary business practices) a warranty in connection with the sale of a product (whether a good or service). The nature of a warranty can vary significantly across industries and contracts. Some warranties provide a customer with assurance that the related product will function as the parties intended because it complies with agreed-upon specifications. Other warranties provide the customer with a service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications.

If a customer has the option to purchase a warranty separately (for example, because the warranty is priced or negotiated separately), the warranty is a distinct service because the entity promises to provide the service to the customer in addition to the product that has the functionality described in the contract. In those circumstances, an entity shall account for the promised warranty as a performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 22–30 and allocate a portion of the transaction price to that performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 73–86.

If a customer does not have the option to purchase a warranty separately, an entity shall account for the warranty in accordance with AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets unless the promised warranty, or a part of the promised warranty, provides the customer with a service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications.

In assessing whether a warranty provides a customer with a service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications, an entity shall consider factors such as:

(a)            Whether the warranty is required by law—if the entity is required by law to provide a warranty, the existence of that law indicates that the promised warranty is not a performance obligation because such requirements typically exist to protect customers from the risk of purchasing defective products.

(b)            The length of the warranty coverage period—the longer the coverage period, the more likely it is that the promised warranty is a performance obligation because it is more likely to provide a service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications.

(c)            The nature of the tasks that the entity promises to perform—if it is necessary for an entity to perform specified tasks to provide the assurance that a product complies with agreed-upon specifications (for example, a return shipping service for a defective product), then those tasks likely do not give rise to a performance obligation.

If a warranty, or a part of a warranty, provides a customer with a service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications, the promised service is a performance obligation. Therefore, an entity shall allocate the transaction price to the product and the service. If an entity promises both an assurance-type warranty and a service-type warranty but cannot reasonably account for them separately, the entity shall account for both of the warranties together as a single performance obligation.

A law that requires an entity to pay compensation if its products cause harm or damage does not give rise to a performance obligation. For example, a manufacturer might sell products in a jurisdiction in which the law holds the manufacturer liable for any damages (for example, to personal property) that might be caused by a consumer using a product for its intended purpose. Similarly, an entity’s promise to indemnify the customer for liabilities and damages arising from claims of patent, copyright, trademark or other infringement by the entity’s products does not give rise to a performance obligation. The entity shall account for such obligations in accordance with AASB 137.

When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, the entity shall determine whether the nature of its promise is a performance obligation to provide the specified goods or services itself (ie the entity is a principal) or to arrange for those goods or services to be provided by the other party (ie the entity is an agent). An entity determines whether it is a principal or an agent for each specified good or service promised 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 (see paragraphs 27–30). If a contract with a customer includes more than one specified good or service, an entity could be a principal for some specified goods or services and an agent for others.

Notwithstanding paragraphs B34–B38, not-for-profit entities that are government departments shall apply the requirements of AASB 1050 Administered Items to administered items.

To determine the nature of its promise (as described in paragraph B34), the entity shall:

(a)            identify the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer (which, for example, could be a right to a good or service to be provided by another party (see paragraph 26)); and

(b)            assess whether it controls (as described in paragraph 33) 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. However, an entity does not necessarily control a specified good if the entity obtains legal title to that good only momentarily before legal title is transferred to a customer. An entity that is a principal may satisfy its performance obligation to provide the specified good or service itself or it may engage another party (for example, a subcontractor) to satisfy some or all of the performance obligation on its behalf.

When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, an entity that is a principal obtains control of any one of the following:

(a)            a good or another asset from the other party that it then transfers to the customer.

(b)            a right to a service to be performed by the other party, which gives the entity the ability to direct that party to provide the service to the customer on the entity’s behalf.

(c)            a good or service from the other party that it then combines with other goods or services in providing the specified good or service to the customer. For example, if an entity provides a significant service of integrating goods or services (see paragraph 29(a)) provided by another party into the specified good or service for which the customer has contracted, the entity controls the specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to the customer. This is because the entity first obtains control of the inputs to the specified good or service (which includes goods or services from other parties) and directs their use to create the combined output that is the specified good or service.

When (or as) an entity that is a principal satisfies a performance obligation, the entity recognises revenue in the gross amount of consideration to which it expects to be entitled in exchange for the specified good or service transferred.

An entity is an agent if the entity’s performance obligation is to arrange for the provision of the specified good or service by another party. 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. When (or as) an entity that is an agent satisfies a performance obligation, the entity recognises revenue in the amount of any fee or commission to which it expects to be entitled in exchange for arranging for the specified goods or services to be provided by the other party. An entity’s fee or commission might be the net amount of consideration that the entity retains after paying the other party the consideration received in exchange for the goods or services to be provided by that party.

Indicators that an entity controls the specified good or service before it is transferred to the customer (and is therefore a principal (see paragraph B35)) include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)            the entity is primarily responsible for fulfilling the promise to provide the specified good or service. This typically includes responsibility for the acceptability of the specified good or service (for example, primary responsibility for the good or service meeting customer specifications). If the entity is primarily responsible for fulfilling the promise to provide the specified good or service, this may indicate that the other party involved in providing the specified good or service is acting on the entity’s behalf.

(b)            the entity has inventory risk before the specified good or service has been transferred to a customer or after transfer of control to the customer (for example, if the customer has a right of return). For example, if the entity obtains, or commits itself to obtain, the specified good or service before obtaining a contract with a customer, that may indicate that the entity has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the good or service before it is transferred to the customer.

(c)            the entity has discretion in establishing the price for the specified good or service. Establishing the price that the customer pays for the specified good or service may indicate that the entity has the ability to direct the use of that good or service and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits. However, an agent can have discretion in establishing prices in some cases. For example, an agent may have some flexibility in setting prices in order to generate additional revenue from its service of arranging for goods or services to be provided by other parties to customers.

The indicators in paragraph B37 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. In addition, different indicators may provide more persuasive evidence in different contracts.

If another entity assumes the entity’s performance obligations and contractual rights in the contract so that the entity is no longer obliged to satisfy the performance obligation to transfer the specified good or service to the customer (ie the entity is no longer acting as the principal), the entity shall not recognise revenue for that performance obligation. Instead, the entity shall evaluate whether to recognise revenue for satisfying a performance obligation to obtain a contract for the other party (ie whether the entity is acting as an agent).

Customer options to acquire additional goods or services for free or at a discount come in many forms, including sales incentives, customer award credits (or points), contract renewal options or other discounts on future goods or services.

If, in a contract, an entity grants a customer the option to acquire additional goods or services, that option gives rise to a performance obligation in the contract only if the option provides a material right to the customer that it would not receive without entering into that contract (for example, a discount that is incremental to the range of discounts typically given for those goods or services to that class of customer in that geographical area or market). If the option provides a material right to the customer, the customer in effect pays the entity in advance for future goods or services and the entity recognises revenue when those future goods or services are transferred or when the option expires.

If a customer has the option to acquire an additional good or service at a price that would reflect the stand-alone selling price for that good or service, that option does not provide the customer with a material right even if the option can be exercised only by entering into a previous contract. In those cases, the entity has made a marketing offer that it shall account for in accordance with this Standard only when the customer exercises the option to purchase the additional goods or services.

Paragraph 74 requires an entity to allocate the transaction price to performance obligations on a relative stand-alone selling price basis. If the stand-alone selling price for a customer’s option to acquire additional goods or services is not directly observable, an entity shall estimate it. That estimate shall reflect the discount that the customer would obtain when exercising the option, adjusted for both of the following:

(a)            any discount that the customer could receive without exercising the option; and

(b)            the likelihood that the option will be exercised.

If a customer has a material right to acquire future goods or services and those goods or services are similar to the original goods or services in the contract and are provided in accordance with the terms of the original contract, then an entity may, as a practical alternative to estimating the stand-alone selling price of the option, allocate the transaction price to the optional goods or services by reference to the goods or services expected to be provided and the corresponding expected consideration. Typically, those types of options are for contract renewals.

In accordance with paragraph 106, upon receipt of a prepayment from a customer, an entity shall recognise a contract liability in the amount of the prepayment for its performance obligation to transfer, or to stand ready to transfer, goods or services in the future. An entity shall derecognise that contract liability (and recognise revenue) when it transfers those goods or services and, therefore, satisfies its performance obligation.

A customer’s non-refundable prepayment to an entity gives the customer a right to receive a good or service in the future (and obliges the entity to stand ready to transfer a good or service). However, customers may not exercise all of their contractual rights. Those unexercised rights are often referred to as breakage.

If an entity expects to be entitled to a breakage amount in a contract liability, the entity shall recognise the expected breakage amount as revenue in proportion to the pattern of rights exercised by the customer. If an entity does not expect to be entitled to a breakage amount, the entity shall recognise the expected breakage amount as revenue when the likelihood of the customer exercising its remaining rights becomes remote. To determine whether an entity expects to be entitled to a breakage amount, the entity shall consider the requirements in paragraphs 56–58 on constraining estimates of variable consideration.

An entity shall recognise a liability (and not revenue) for any consideration received that is attributable to a customer’s unexercised rights for which the entity is required to remit to another party, for example, a government entity in accordance with applicable unclaimed property laws.

In some contracts, an entity charges a customer a non-refundable upfront fee at or near contract inception. Examples include joining fees in health club membership contracts, activation fees in telecommunication contracts, setup fees in some services contracts and initial fees in some supply contracts.

To identify performance obligations in such contracts, an entity shall assess 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 (see paragraph 25). Instead, the upfront fee is an advance payment for future goods or services and, therefore, would be recognised as revenue when those future goods or services are provided. The revenue recognition period would extend beyond the initial contractual period if the entity grants the customer the option to renew the contract and that option provides the customer with a material right as described in paragraph B40.

If the non-refundable upfront fee relates to a good or service, the entity shall evaluate whether to account for the good or service as a separate performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 22–30.

An entity may charge a non-refundable fee in part as compensation for costs incurred in setting up a contract (or other administrative tasks as described in paragraph 25). If those setup activities do not satisfy a performance obligation, the entity shall disregard those activities (and related costs) when measuring progress in accordance with paragraph B19. That is because the costs of setup activities do not depict the transfer of services to the customer. The entity shall assess whether costs incurred in setting up a contract have resulted in an asset that shall be recognised in accordance with paragraph 95.

A licence establishes a customer’s rights to the intellectual property of an entity. Licences of intellectual property may include, but are not limited to, licences of any of the following:

(a)            software and technology;

(b)            motion pictures, music and other forms of media and entertainment;

(c)            franchises; and

(d)            patents, trademarks and copyrights.

In addition to a promise to grant a licence (or licences) to a customer, an entity may also promise to transfer other goods or services to the customer. Those promises may be explicitly stated in the contract or implied by an entity’s customary business practices, published policies or specific statements (see paragraph 24). As with other types of contracts, when a contract with a customer includes a promise to grant a licence (or licences) in addition to other promised goods or services, an entity applies paragraphs 22–30 to identify each of the performance obligations in the contract.

If the promise to grant a licence is not distinct from other promised goods or services in the contract in accordance with paragraphs 26–30, an entity shall account for the promise to grant a licence and those other promised goods or services together as a single performance obligation. Examples of licences that are not distinct from other goods or services promised in the contract include the following:

(a)            a licence that forms a component of a tangible good and that is integral to the functionality of the good; and

(b)            a licence that the customer can benefit from only in conjunction with a related service (such as an online service provided by the entity that enables, by granting a licence, the customer to access content).

If the licence is not distinct, an entity shall apply paragraphs 31–38 to determine whether the performance obligation (which includes the promised licence) is a performance obligation that is satisfied over time or satisfied at a point in time.

If the promise to grant the licence is distinct from the other promised goods or services in the contract and, therefore, the promise to grant the licence is a separate performance obligation, an entity shall determine whether the licence transfers to a customer either at a point in time or over time. In making this determination, an entity shall consider whether the nature of the entity’s promise in granting the licence to a customer is to provide the customer with either:

(a)            a right to access the entity’s intellectual property as it exists throughout the licence period; or

(b)            a right to use the entity’s intellectual property as it exists at the point in time at which the licence is granted.

[Deleted]

The nature of an entity’s promise in granting a licence is a promise to provide a right to access the entity’s intellectual property if all of the following criteria are met:

(a)            the contract requires, or the customer reasonably expects, that the entity will undertake activities that significantly affect the intellectual property to which the customer has rights (see paragraphs B59 and B59A);

(b)            the rights granted by the licence directly expose the customer to any positive or negative effects of the entity’s activities identified in paragraph B58(a); and

(c)            those activities do not result in the transfer of a good or a service to the customer as those activities occur (see paragraph 25).

Factors that may indicate that a customer could reasonably expect that an entity will undertake activities that significantly affect the intellectual property include the entity’s customary business practices, published policies or specific statements. Although not determinative, the existence of a shared economic interest (for example, a sales-based royalty) between the entity and the customer related to the intellectual property to which the customer has rights may also indicate that the customer could reasonably expect that the entity will undertake such activities.

An entity’s activities significantly affect the intellectual property to which the customer has rights when either:

(a)            those activities are expected to significantly change the form (for example, the design or content) or the functionality (for example, the ability to perform a function or task) of the intellectual property; or

(b)            the ability of the customer to obtain benefit from the intellectual property is substantially derived from, or dependent upon, those activities. For example, the benefit from a brand is often derived from, or dependent upon, the entity’s ongoing activities that support or maintain the value of the intellectual property.

Accordingly, if the intellectual property to which the customer has rights has significant stand-alone functionality, a substantial portion of the benefit of that intellectual property is derived from that functionality. Consequently, the ability of the customer to obtain benefit from that intellectual property would not be significantly affected by the entity’s activities unless those activities significantly change its form or functionality. Types of intellectual property that often have significant stand-alone functionality include software, biological compounds or drug formulas, and completed media content (for example, films, television shows and music recordings).

If the criteria in paragraph B58 are met, an entity shall account for the promise to grant a licence as a performance obligation satisfied over time because the customer will simultaneously receive and consume the benefit from the entity’s performance of providing access to its intellectual property as the performance occurs (see paragraph 35(a)). An entity shall apply paragraphs 39–45 to select an appropriate method to measure its progress towards complete satisfaction of that performance obligation to provide access.

If the criteria in paragraph B58 are not met, the nature of an entity’s promise is to provide a right to use the entity’s intellectual property as that intellectual property exists (in terms of form and functionality) at the point in time at which the licence is granted to the customer. This means that the customer can direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the licence at the point in time at which the licence transfers. An entity shall account for the promise to provide a right to use the entity’s intellectual property as a performance obligation satisfied at a point in time. An entity shall apply paragraph 38 to determine the point in time at which the licence transfers to the customer. However, revenue cannot be recognised for a licence that provides a right to use the entity’s intellectual property before the beginning of the period during which the customer is able to use and benefit from the licence. For example, if a software licence period begins before an entity provides (or otherwise makes available) to the customer a code that enables the customer to immediately use the software, the entity would not recognise revenue before that code has been provided (or otherwise made available).

An entity shall disregard the following factors when determining whether a licence provides a right to access the entity’s intellectual property or a right to use the entity’s intellectual property:

(a)            Restrictions of time, geographical region or use—those restrictions define the attributes of the promised licence, rather than define whether the entity satisfies its performance obligation at a point in time or over time.

(b)            Guarantees provided by the entity that it has a valid patent to intellectual property and that it will defend that patent from unauthorised use—a promise to defend a patent right is not a performance obligation because the act of defending a patent protects the value of the entity’s intellectual property assets and provides assurance to the customer that the licence transferred meets the specifications of the licence promised in the contract.

Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs 56–59, an entity shall recognise revenue for a sales-based or usage-based royalty promised in exchange for a licence of intellectual property only when (or as) the later of the following events occurs:

(a)            the subsequent sale or usage occurs; and

(b)            the performance obligation to which some or all of the sales-based or usage-based royalty has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied).

The requirement for a sales-based or usage-based royalty in paragraph B63 applies when the royalty relates only to a licence of intellectual property or when a licence of intellectual property is the predominant item to which the royalty relates (for example, the licence of intellectual property may be the predominant item to which the royalty relates when the entity has a reasonable expectation that the customer would ascribe significantly more value to the licence than to the other goods or services to which the royalty relates).

When the requirement in paragraph B63A is met, revenue from a sales-based or usage-based royalty shall be recognised wholly in accordance with paragraph B63. When the requirement in paragraph B63A is not met, the requirements on variable consideration in paragraphs 50–59 apply to the sales-based or usage-based royalty.

A repurchase agreement is a contract in which an entity sells an asset and also promises or has the option (either in the same contract or in another contract) to repurchase the asset. The repurchased asset may be the asset that was originally sold to the customer, an asset that is substantially the same as that asset, or another asset of which the asset that was originally sold is a component.

Repurchase agreements generally come in three forms:

(a)            an entity’s obligation to repurchase the asset (a forward);

(b)            an entity’s right to repurchase the asset (a call option); and

(c)            an entity’s obligation to repurchase the asset at the customer’s request (a put option).

If an entity has an obligation or a right to repurchase the asset (a forward or a call option), a customer does not obtain control of the asset because the customer is limited in its ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset even though the customer may have physical possession of the asset. Consequently, the entity shall account for the contract as either of the following:

(a)            a lease in accordance with AASB 16 Leases if the entity can or must repurchase the asset for an amount that is less than the original selling price of the asset, unless the contract is part of a sale and leaseback transaction. If the contract is part of a sale and leaseback transaction, the entity shall continue to recognise the asset and shall recognise a financial liability for any consideration received from the customer. The entity shall account for the financial liability in accordance with AASB 9; or

(b)            a financing arrangement in accordance with paragraph B68 if the entity can or must repurchase the asset for an amount that is equal to or more than the original selling price of the asset.

When comparing the repurchase price with the selling price, an entity shall consider the time value of money.

If the repurchase agreement is a financing arrangement, the entity shall continue to recognise the asset and also recognise a financial liability for any consideration received from the customer. The entity shall recognise the difference between the amount of consideration received from the customer and the amount of consideration to be paid to the customer as interest and, if applicable, as processing or holding costs (for example, insurance).

If the option lapses unexercised, an entity shall derecognise the liability and recognise revenue.

If an entity has an obligation to repurchase the asset at the customer’s request (a put option) at a price that is lower than the original selling price of the asset, the entity shall consider at contract inception whether the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise that right. The customer’s exercising of that right results in the customer effectively paying the entity consideration for the right to use a specified asset for a period of time. Therefore, if the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise that right, the entity shall account for the agreement as a lease in accordance with AASB 16, unless the contract is part of a sale and leaseback transaction. If the contract is part of a sale and leaseback transaction, the entity shall continue to recognise the asset and shall recognise a financial liability for any consideration received from the customer. The entity shall account for the financial liability in accordance with AASB 9.

To determine whether a customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise its right, an entity shall consider various factors, including the relationship of the repurchase price to the expected market value of the asset at the date of the repurchase and the amount of time until the right expires. For example, if the repurchase price is expected to significantly exceed the market value of the asset, this may indicate that the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise the put option.

If the customer does not have a significant economic incentive to exercise its right at a price that is lower than the original selling price of the asset, the entity shall account for the agreement as if it were the sale of a product with a right of return as described in paragraphs B20–B27.

If the repurchase price of the asset is equal to or greater than the original selling price and is more than the expected market value of the asset, the contract is in effect a financing arrangement and, therefore, shall be accounted for as described in paragraph B68.

If the repurchase price of the asset is equal to or greater than the original selling price and is less than or equal to the expected market value of the asset, and the customer does not have a significant economic incentive to exercise its right, then the entity shall account for the agreement as if it were the sale of a product with a right of return as described in paragraphs B20–B27.

When comparing the repurchase price with the selling price, an entity shall consider the time value of money.

If the option lapses unexercised, an entity shall derecognise the liability and recognise revenue.

When an entity delivers a product to another party (such as a dealer or a distributor) for sale to end customers, the entity shall evaluate whether that other party has obtained control of the product at that point in time. A product that has been delivered to another party may be held in a consignment arrangement if that other party has not obtained control of the product. Accordingly, an entity shall not recognise revenue upon delivery of a product to another party if the delivered product is held on consignment.

Indicators that an arrangement is a consignment arrangement include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)            the product is controlled by the entity until a specified event occurs, such as the sale of the product to a customer of the dealer or until a specified period expires;

(b)            the entity is able to require the return of the product or transfer the product to a third party (such as another dealer); and

(c)            the dealer does not have an unconditional obligation to pay for the product (although it might be required to pay a deposit).

A bill-and-hold arrangement is a contract under which an entity bills a customer for a product but the entity retains physical possession of the product until it is transferred to the customer at a point in time in the future. For example, a customer may request an entity to enter into such a contract because of the customer’s lack of available space for the product or because of delays in the customer’s production schedules.

An entity shall determine when it has satisfied its performance obligation to transfer a product by evaluating when a customer obtains control of that product (see paragraph 38). For some contracts, control is transferred either when the product is delivered to the customer’s site or when the product is shipped, depending on the terms of the contract (including delivery and shipping terms). However, for some contracts, a customer may obtain control of a product even though that product remains in an entity’s physical possession. In that case, the customer has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the product even though it has decided not to exercise its right to take physical possession of that product. Consequently, the entity does not control the product. Instead, the entity provides custodial services to the customer over the customer’s asset.

In addition to applying the requirements in paragraph 38, for a customer to have obtained control of a product in a bill-and-hold arrangement, all of the following criteria must be met:

(a)            the reason for the bill-and-hold arrangement must be substantive (for example, the customer has requested the arrangement);

(b)            the product must be identified separately as belonging to the customer;

(c)            the product currently must be ready for physical transfer to the customer; and

(d)            the entity cannot have the ability to use the product or to direct it to another customer.

If an entity recognises revenue for the sale of a product on a bill-and-hold basis, the entity shall consider whether it has remaining performance obligations (for example, for custodial services) in accordance with paragraphs 22–30 to which the entity shall allocate a portion of the transaction price in accordance with paragraphs 73–86.

In accordance with paragraph 38(e), a customer’s acceptance of an asset may indicate that the customer has obtained control of the asset. Customer acceptance clauses allow a customer to cancel a contract or require an entity to take remedial action if a good or service does not meet agreed-upon specifications. An entity shall consider such clauses when evaluating when a customer obtains control of a good or service.

If an entity can objectively determine that control of a good or service has been transferred to the customer in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications in the contract, then customer acceptance is a formality that would not affect the entity’s determination of when the customer has obtained control of the good or service. For example, if the customer acceptance clause is based on meeting specified size and weight characteristics, an entity would be able to determine whether those criteria have been met before receiving confirmation of the customer’s acceptance. The entity’s experience with contracts for similar goods or services may provide evidence that a good or service provided to the customer is in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications in the contract. If revenue is recognised before customer acceptance, the entity still must consider whether there are any remaining performance obligations (for example, installation of equipment) and evaluate whether to account for them separately.

However, if an entity cannot objectively determine that the good or service provided to the customer is in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications in the contract, then the entity would not be able to conclude that the customer has obtained control until the entity receives the customer’s acceptance. That is because in that circumstance the entity cannot determine that the customer has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the good or service.

If an entity delivers products to a customer for trial or evaluation purposes and the customer is not committed to pay any consideration until the trial period lapses, control of the product is not transferred to the customer until either the customer accepts the product or the trial period lapses.

Paragraph 114 requires an entity to disaggregate revenue from contracts with customers into categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors. Consequently, the extent to which an entity’s revenue is disaggregated for the purposes of this disclosure depends on the facts and circumstances that pertain to the entity’s contracts with customers. Some entities may need to use more than one type of category to meet the objective in paragraph 114 for disaggregating revenue. Other entities may meet the objective by using only one type of category to disaggregate revenue.

When selecting the type of category (or categories) to use to disaggregate revenue, an entity shall consider how information about the entity’s revenue has been presented for other purposes, including all of the following:

(a)            disclosures presented outside the financial statements (for example, in earnings releases, annual reports or investor presentations);

(b)            information regularly reviewed by the chief operating decision maker for evaluating the financial performance of operating segments; and

(c)            other information that is similar to the types of information identified in paragraph B88(a) and (b) and that is used by the entity or users of the entity’s financial statements to evaluate the entity’s financial performance or make resource allocation decisions.

Examples of categories that might be appropriate include, but are not limited to, all of the following:

(a)            type of good or service (for example, major product lines);

(b)            geographical region (for example, country or region);

(c)            market or type of customer (for example, government and non-government customers);

(d)            type of contract (for example, fixed-price and time-and-materials contracts);

(e)            contract duration (for example, short-term and long-term contracts);

(f)            timing of transfer of goods or services (for example, revenue from goods or services transferred to customers at a point in time and revenue from goods or services transferred over time); and

(g)            sales channels (for example, goods sold directly to consumers and goods sold through intermediaries).