Australian illustrative examples for not-for-profit entities (AASB15_12-14_COMPmar20_07-21)

Example 1—Enforceable agreement

Local Government A (the reporting entity) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a not-for-profit private sector entity. The MOU specifies that it is not legally binding on either of the parties and does not impose a refund obligation on the not-for-profit entity in the event it fails to perform under the terms of the agreement or refer to other enforceability mechanisms. Despite the statement that the MOU is not legally binding, the parties have indicated in their discussions their intention to rely upon it. The not-for-profit entity has commenced providing services under the MOU and has reported to Local Government A on its first two months’ work.

Given the intention of the parties to rely upon the MOU, and the actions of the not-for-profit entity in reliance on the MOU, the MOU is enforceable despite the statement that it is not legally binding and the absence of a refund obligation or other enforcement requirements.

Example 2—Research activities—Transfer of intellectual property

University A receives a cash grant from a donor, Road Safety Authority B, of $1.2 million to undertake research that aims to observe and model traffic flows and patterns through black-spot intersections and to develop proposals for improvements to the road system.

The terms of the grant are:

·        a period of three years;

·        the return of funds that are either unspent or not spent in accordance with the agreement;

·        annual progress reports and a final report are required;

·        publication of research results in conference presentations and/or scholarly journals; and

·        the transfer of the intellectual property (IP) rights arising from the research activity to the donor, Authority B.

University A concludes its arrangement with donor B is a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15. This is on the basis that:

·        University A’s promise of specified research and transfer of the resulting IP is enforceable as the grant is refundable if the research is not undertaken;

·        University A identifies that its promise to transfer the IP created through the research to the donor is sufficiently specific to be a performance obligation. The university determines that the research services are required to develop the IP in order to fulfil the contract and therefore do not, of themselves, give rise to a transfer of goods or services to the donor; and

·        University A determines that the requirements for annual progress reports, a final report and publication of research results are an acquittal process that will assist it to measure its progress towards satisfaction of the performance obligation, rather than a separate performance obligation or obligations.

Accounting treatment

In accordance with AASB 15, University A allocates the cash grant to its identified performance obligation and recognises the financial asset (cash) and a contract liability of $1.2 million on initial recognition.

University A concludes that the performance obligation is satisfied over time as the university’s performance creates or enhances an asset (knowledge – the IP) that the donor controls as the asset is created or enhanced (AASB 15, paragraph 35(b)). Accordingly, the university recognises revenue over time as it satisfies the performance obligation. The university elects to measure its progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation on the basis of an input method, such as labour hours expended.

 

Example 3—Research activities—Provision of licence to donor

Example 3A – Enforceable agreement, sufficiently specific performance obligation, licence granted to donor (right to access IP)

In this example, the facts of Example 2 apply, except that:

·        University A retains control of the IP arising from the research, instead of the IP transferring to the donor;

·        the IP is licensed permanently to donor B at the commencement of the agreement; and

·        the licence covers the research activities undertaken and the results that arise over the term of the agreement as the IP is developed.

University A concludes its arrangement with donor B is a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15. This is on the basis that:

·        University A’s promise of specified research and granting of the licence is enforceable as the grant is refundable if the research is not undertaken;

·        University A identifies that its promise to grant the licence to the donor is sufficiently specific to be a performance obligation. The university determines that the research services are required to develop the IP in order to fulfil the contract and therefore do not, of themselves, give rise to a transfer of goods or services to the donor; and

·        University A determines that the requirements for annual progress reports and a final report and publication of research results are an acquittal process that will assist it to measure its progress towards satisfaction of the performance obligation.

Accounting treatment

In accordance with AASB 15, University A allocates the cash grant to its identified performance obligation (granting of the licence to the IP) and recognises the financial asset (cash) and a contract liability of $1.2 million on initial recognition.

University A concludes that the performance obligation is satisfied over time as the licence provides the donor with a right to access the entity’s IP as it exists throughout the licence period (paragraph B58):

·        the university’s activities significantly affect the IP to which the donor has rights;

·        the licence exposes the donor to any positive or negative effects of the university’s activities; and

·        the university’s activities do not result in the transfer of a good or service to the donor as those activities occur.

Accordingly, the university recognises revenue over time as it satisfies the performance obligation. The university elects to measure its progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation on the basis of an input method, such as labour hours expended.

Example 3B – Enforceable agreement, sufficiently specific performance obligation, licence granted to donor (right to use IP)

In this example, the facts of Example 3A apply, except that:

·        the research aims to observe and model traffic flows and patterns along roads potentially affected by a future freeway development and to develop proposals for the freeway interchanges; and

·        the IP (as it then exists) is licensed permanently to donor B at the conclusion of the agreement.

University A concludes its arrangement with donor B is a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15. This is on the basis that:

·        University A’s promise of specified research and granting of the licence is enforceable as the grant is refundable if the research is not undertaken; and

·        University A identifies that its promise to grant the licence to the donor is sufficiently specific to be a performance obligation. The university determines that the research services are required to develop the IP in order to fulfil the contract and therefore do not, of themselves, give rise to a transfer of goods or services to the donor.

Accounting treatment

In accordance with AASB 15, University A allocates the cash grant to its identified performance obligation (granting of the licence to the IP) and recognises the financial asset (cash) and a contract liability of $1.2 million on initial recognition.

University A concludes that the performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time (the end of the grant period) as the licence provides the donor only with a right to use the entity’s IP as it exists when the licence is granted (paragraph B61). That is, the licence provides the donor with a right to use the university’s IP as it exists at the end of the grant period. The licence does not provide a right to access the university’s IP as the criteria in paragraph B58 are not met.

Accordingly, the university recognises revenue at the conclusion of the agreement, when the licence is granted to the donor.

 

Example 4—Research activities—Transfer of research findings

Example 4A – Enforceable agreement, sufficiently specific performance obligation, research data only

Research Institute C receives a cash grant from a donor, Marine Sanctuaries Trust M, of $5.3 million to undertake research that aims to track whale migration along the eastern coast of Australia.

The terms of the grant are:

·        a period of three years;

·        the return of funds that are either unspent or not spent in accordance with the agreement;

·        publication of research data on a public website as it is obtained, so that any researchers can use the data;

·        the IP arising from the research is neither transferred to nor licensed to donor M;

·        annual progress reports and a final report are required;

·        Institute C may publish research results in conference presentations and/or scholarly journals, retaining the copyright to such results; and

·        the institute has an explicit right to payment for the research services completed to date if the agreement is terminated.

Institute C concludes that the arrangement is a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15 on the basis that:

·        Institute C’s promise of specified research and contemporaneous publication of the research data is enforceable as the grant is refundable if the research is not undertaken;

·        the institute identifies its promise to undertake the research and contemporaneously publish the research data is sufficiently specific and represents a single performance obligation; and

·        the undertaking of the research and contemporaneous publication of the data will represent services provided to the donor, as it is a beneficiary of the research even though the research data is publicly available.

Accounting treatment

In accordance with AASB 15, Institute C allocates the cash grant to its identified performance obligation and recognises the financial asset (cash) and a contract liability of $5.3 million on initial recognition.

Institute C concludes that the performance obligation is satisfied over time as the donor simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits of the research services as they are performed (paragraph 35(a)). This is on the grounds that the research data is made public as it is collected.

Accordingly, the institute recognises revenue over time as it satisfies the performance obligation. The institute elects to measure its progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation on the basis of research data published.

Example 4B – Enforceable agreement, sufficiently specific performance obligation, research data and assessment only

In this example, the facts of Example 4A apply, except that:

·        the grant requires Research Institute C to prepare interim and final reports analysing the tracking data obtained;

·        publication of the research data is required at the conclusion of the research, rather than contemporaneously;

·        the IP arising from the research is neither transferred to nor licensed to donor M; and

·        the institute is restricted from readily directing the tracking information and analysis for another use of the institute.

Institute C concludes that the arrangement is a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15, on the same basis as set out in Example 4A.

Accounting treatment

In accordance with AASB 15, Institute C allocates the cash grant to its identified performance obligation and recognises the financial asset (cash) and a contract liability of $5.3 million on initial recognition.

Institute C concludes that the donor does not simultaneously receive and consume the benefits of the research services as they are performed, since the research data is not published until the conclusion of the research. Furthermore, the performance of the research activities results in the accumulation of knowledge, which is an asset (whether recognisable or unrecognisable) developed by the researcher but not immediately consumed. Therefore, paragraph 35(a) is not satisfied.

As the donor does not obtain the IP under the agreement, Institute C determines that its research does not create or enhance an asset that donor M controls as the asset is created or enhanced. Therefore, paragraph 35(b) is not satisfied.

Institute C notes that its research performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to the entity due to the restrictions in the agreement regarding directing the research to another use. Institute C also notes that it has an explicit, enforceable right to payment for performance completed. Therefore, paragraph 35(c) is satisfied.

Accordingly, Institute C concludes that the performance obligation is satisfied over time and recognises revenue over time as it satisfies the performance obligation. The institute elects to measure progress on the basis of the amount it would be entitled to receive for its performance to date, which corresponds with the value of the performance to the customer.

Example 4C – Enforceable agreement, sufficiently specific performance obligation, research data and assessment only

In this example, the facts of Example 4B apply, except that Institute C is able to utilise the research it performs for any other use of the institute. Institute C concludes that the arrangement is a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15, on the same basis as set out in Example 4A.

Accounting treatment

In accordance with AASB 15, Institute C allocates the cash grant to its identified performance obligation and recognises the financial asset (cash) and a contract liability of $5.3 million on initial recognition.

Institute C concludes that the donor does not simultaneously receive and consume the benefits of the research services as they are performed, on the same basis as set out in Example 4B. Therefore, paragraph 35(a) is not satisfied.

Institute C determines that its research does not create or enhance an asset that donor M controls as the asset is created or enhanced, on the same basis as set out in Example 4B. Therefore, paragraph 35(b) is not satisfied.

Moreover, the institute notes that it is able to utilise the research it performs for any other use it determines. This is on the grounds that the institute has no contractual or practical limitation on its use of the research, including having the ability to sell the research to another customer. Therefore, the institute’s performance does create an asset with an alternative use to the entity, and paragraph 35(c) is not satisfied.

Accordingly, Institute C concludes that the performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time (the end of the grant period) and recognises revenue at the conclusion of the agreement, when it satisfies the performance obligation.

Example 4D – Enforceable agreement, sufficiently specific performance obligation, research data only

In this example, the facts of Example 4C apply, except that, rather than requiring publication of research data contemporaneously or at the conclusion of the research, the grant agreement refers to the institute’s policy that requires the de-identified research findings (including data) to be made available to the donor and authorised third parties periodically (eg at least annually at the end of each year).^[a]

Institute C concludes that the arrangement is a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15 on the basis that:

·        Institute C’s promise of specified research and making available the de-identified research findings is enforceable as the grant is refundable if the research is not undertaken; and

·        the institute identifies its promises to make available de-identified research findings periodically as sufficiently specific promises as they are separate performance obligations each satisfied at a point in time, representing discrete transfers of the research findings to the donor or third-party beneficiaries. The promises are sufficiently specific on the basis that the policies attached to the research grant specify the nature of the material (de-identified research findings (including data)) to be made available and a timeframe for that to occur (ie making the research findings available periodically, at least at the end of each of the three years). The terms of the grant require the institute to make the research findings available to the donor and third parties as set out in its policy, regardless of whether the donor or third parties actually access the findings.

Accounting treatment

In accordance with AASB 15, Institute C allocates the cash grant to its identified performance obligations and recognises the financial asset (cash) and a contract liability of $5.3 million on initial recognition.

Institute C concludes that for each of the performance obligations, the donor does not simultaneously receive and consume the benefits of the research services as they are performed. This is on the grounds that performance of the research activities results in the accumulation of knowledge, an asset (whether recognisable or unrecognisable) that is not immediately consumed. Therefore, paragraph 35(a) is not satisfied.

The donor does not obtain the IP under the agreement, nor does the donor control the knowledge accumulated as research activities are carried out. As a result, Institute C determines that its research does not create or enhance an asset that the donor M controls as the asset is created or enhanced. Therefore, paragraph 35(b) is not satisfied.

Moreover, the institute notes that it is able to utilise the research it performs for any other use it determines. This is on the grounds that the institute has no contractual or practical limitation on its use of the research, including having the ability to sell the research to another party. Therefore, the institute’s performance does create an asset with an alternative use to the entity, and paragraph 35(c) is not satisfied.

Accordingly, Institute C concludes that each performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time (eg the end of each year) when the research findings to date are made available, whether or not the donor or third parties access the findings, and recognises the related revenue at those points in time (eg the end of each year).

Example 5—Research activities—No contract with a customer

Example 5A – Enforceable agreement, performance obligations not sufficiently specific

University G receives a cash grant from a donor, Medical Research Trust Z, of $2 million to undertake research that aims to identify and validate biomarkers to distinguish malignant cancers from benign tumours.

The terms of the grant are:

·        a period of two years;

·        the return of funds that are either unspent or not spent in accordance with the agreement;

·        semi-annual budget reports that detail how the funds have been spent to date; and

·        the research results are publicised, when appropriate, in conference presentations and/or published in scholarly journals.

University G notes that the arrangement is enforceable as the grant is refundable if the research is not undertaken. However, University G concludes its arrangement with donor Z is not a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15. This is on the basis that:

·        publicising the research results when appropriate is not sufficiently specific to enable University A to identify when it satisfies its obligations because there is no requirement to produce a specified number of publications or deliver a specified number of presentations; and

·        the budget reports merely provide the grantor an indication of the University’s spending of funds and do not represent a transfer of a benefit to the grantor.

Accordingly, the university concludes that the arrangement is not within the scope of AASB 15. Given that the university acquired cash (the grant funds) for consideration that is significantly less than fair value (there are no performance obligations to recognise) principally to enable it to further its objectives (research), University G concludes that AASB 1058 Income of Not-for-Profit Entities is applicable.

Accounting treatment

University G recognises a financial asset of $2 million for the cash grant received and recognises any related amounts arising under other Australian Accounting Standards in accordance with AASB 1058. Any excess of the financial asset over the related amounts would be recognised as income.

Example 5B – Enforceable agreement, performance obligations not sufficiently specific, individual researcher controls grant funds

In this example, the facts of Example 5A apply, except that:

·        University G receives the grant funds to administer on behalf of a researcher named in the grant;

·        the named researcher may direct the use of the funds in accordance with the grant agreement; and

·        the funding arrangement is tied to the researcher, so that if the researcher moves from University G to another research institution, any unspent grant funds held by the university will be transferred to the other research institution.

University G concludes that the arrangement is not a contract with a customer as defined in AASB 15, on the same basis as set out in Example 5A.

University G notes that it merely administers the grant funds on behalf of the researcher. Accordingly, the university considers the arrangement under the requirements of AASB 9 Financial Instruments, noting it:

·        receives cash that it administers in accordance with the grant agreement (to which it is a party);

·        may invest the funds it holds as it considers appropriate, benefiting from any interest received and obliged to reimburse any losses incurred; and

·        agrees to expend those funds at the direction of the researcher.

Accounting treatment

University G recognises a financial asset of $2 million for the funds received, in accordance with paragraph 3.1.1 of AASB 9. The university then considers whether it has transferred the financial asset to the researcher, but notes that because it may invest the funds as it considers appropriate, the university retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the funds. Accordingly, the university continues to recognise the grant funds as a financial asset and recognises an equal amount as a financial liability to expend the grant funds at the researcher’s direction, as required by paragraph 3.2.15 of AASB 9.

 

Example 6—Performance obligation, transfer of goods without donation element

Entity A (a not-for-profit entity) sells chocolates in a fundraising drive for a greater margin than a for-profit entity would typically generate by selling chocolates. In addition, buyers of the chocolates are often motivated by the not-for-profit entity’s benevolent aims. The customer is entitled to a full refund of the purchase price if the chocolates were ordered and paid for in advance and either the delivered chocolates were spoiled or Entity A is unable to deliver the chocolates.

Entity A determines there is a contract with a customer accounted for under AASB 15, as there is:

·        an enforceable contract due to the return obligation; and

·        a sufficiently specific performance obligation requiring the transfer of the chocolates to the customer, which is satisfied at the time of delivery.

Entity A determines that the presumption in paragraph F28 cannot be rebutted because the transaction price is not partially refundable.

Accounting treatment

Accordingly, the entire consideration received, including the proceeds from the additional profit margin, forms part of the transaction price that is allocated to the performance obligation. There is no element unrelated to the transfer of the chocolates that would require separate accounting.

 

Example 7—Performance obligation, transfer of goods without donation element

Entity B holds an annual fundraising dinner in its local community. The ticket price is $600 per head, and is partially refundable if the dinner is cancelled, in which case the customer will receive a refund of $300. Based on the menu, the retail price of the dinner at a local restaurant is $200 per ticket. Hosting the dinner also provides patrons (customers) with the benefit of socialising with a wide range of community members (including networking) and the amount of consideration to which Entity B expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services (the dinner and networking) to the customer is $250.

Entity B determines there is a contract with a customer to be accounted for under AASB 15, as there is:

·        an enforceable contract due to the return obligation; and

·        a sufficiently specific performance obligation requiring the provision of the dinner and networki9ng to the customer, which would be satisfied at the point in time when provided.

Entity B determines that the presumption in paragraph F28 is rebutted as there is a partial refund in the event of non-performance. The element not related to the performance obligation is considered material

Accounting treatment

For each ticket sold, Entity B recognises:

·        a contract liability of $250, in accordance with AASB 15, which represents the transaction price of the dinner and networking to be provided to the ticketholder. Entity B would recognise this amount as revenue when it provides the dinner event; and

·        income of $350, in accordance with AASB 1058 – the residual of $350 is a result of a transaction where the consideration provided by the entity ($250) is significantly less than the fair value of the asset (cash of $600) principally to enable Entity B to further its objectives and therefore AASB 1058 applies, with immediate recognition of income.

A refund obligation is recognised only to the extent that the entity does not expect to retain the refundable amount. Entity B therefore does not recognise the refund obligation of $300 unless the dinner is cancelled or is expected to be cancelled. In that case, and subsequent to the initial accounting above, Entity B would then recognise in respect of each ticket:

·        the reversal of the contract liability of $250 (debit), as settlement is no longer expected;

·        a reduction in cash of $300 (credit), being the refund to the ticket holder; and

·        the difference of $50 (debit) is either an expense or a reduction of donation income previously recognised.

This results in a net donation of $300 per ticket, reflecting the net cash received for each ticket after the refund has been made.