AASB 15

The objective of this Standard is to establish the principles that an entity shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from a contract with a customer.

To meet the objective in paragraph 1, the core principle of this Standard is that an entity shall recognise revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.

An entity shall consider the terms of the contract and all relevant facts and circumstances when applying this Standard. An entity shall apply this Standard, including the use of any practical expedients, consistently to contracts with similar characteristics and in similar circumstances.

This Standard specifies the accounting for an individual contract with a customer. However, as a practical expedient, an entity may apply this Standard to a portfolio of contracts (or performance obligations) with similar characteristics if the entity reasonably expects that the effects on the financial statements of applying this Standard to the portfolio would not differ materially from applying this Standard to the individual contracts (or performance obligations) within that portfolio. When accounting for a portfolio, an entity shall use estimates and assumptions that reflect the size and composition of the portfolio.

An entity shall apply this Standard to all contracts with customers, except the following:

(a)            lease contracts within the scope of AASB 16 Leases;

(b)            insurance contracts within the scope of AASB 4 Insurance Contracts;

(c)            financial instruments and other contractual rights or obligations within the scope of AASB 9 Financial Instruments, AASB 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, AASB 11 Joint Arrangements, AASB 127 Separate Financial Statements and AASB 128 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures; and

(d)            non-monetary exchanges between entities in the same line of business to facilitate sales to customers or potential customers. For example, this Standard would not apply to a contract between two oil companies that agree to an exchange of oil to fulfil demand from their customers in different specified locations on a timely basis.

In addition to paragraph 5, in respect of not-for-profit entities, a transfer of a financial asset to enable an entity to acquire or construct a recognisable non-financial asset that is to be controlled by the entity, as described in AASB 1058 Income of Not-for-Profit Entities, is not within the scope of this Standard.

Notwithstanding paragraph 5, in respect of not-for-profit public sector licensors, this Standard also applies to licences issued, other than licences subject to AASB 16 Leases, or transactions subject to AASB 1059 Service Concession Arrangements: Grantors, irrespective of whether the licences are contracts with customers. Licences include those arising from statutory requirements. Guidance on applying this Standard to licences is set out in Appendix G, including the distinction between a licence and a tax.

An entity shall apply this Standard to a contract (other than a contract listed in paragraph 5) only if the counterparty to the contract is a customer. A customer is a party that has contracted with an entity to obtain goods or services that are an output of the entity’s ordinary activities in exchange for consideration. A counterparty to the contract would not be a customer if, for example, the counterparty has contracted with the entity to participate in an activity or process in which the parties to the contract share in the risks and benefits that result from the activity or process (such as developing an asset in a collaboration arrangement) rather than to obtain the output of the entity’s ordinary activities.

A contract with a customer may be partially within the scope of this Standard and partially within the scope of other Standards listed in paragraph 5.

(a)            If the other Standards specify how to separate and/or initially measure one or more parts of the contract, then an entity shall first apply the separation and/or measurement requirements in those Standards. An entity shall exclude from the transaction price the amount of the part (or parts) of the contract that are initially measured in accordance with other Standards and shall apply paragraphs 73–86 to allocate the amount of the transaction price that remains (if any) to each performance obligation within the scope of this Standard and to any other parts of the contract identified by paragraph 7(b).

(b)            If the other Standards do not specify how to separate and/or initially measure one or more parts of the contract, then the entity shall apply this Standard to separate and/or initially measure the part (or parts) of the contract.

For not-for-profit entities, a contract may also be partially within the scope of this Standard and partially within the scope of AASB 1058.

This Standard specifies the accounting for the incremental costs of obtaining a contract with a customer and for the costs incurred to fulfil a contract with a customer if those costs are not within the scope of another Standard (see paragraphs 91–104). An entity shall apply those paragraphs only to the costs incurred that relate to a contract with a customer (or part of that contract) that is within the scope of this Standard.

Except as specified in paragraph Aus8.2, a not-for-profit public sector licensor may elect not to apply the requirements in paragraphs 9–90 (and accompanying Application Guidance) to:

(a)            short-term licences; and

(b)            licences for which the transaction price is of low value.

The option allowed in paragraph Aus8.1 is not available to licences that have variable consideration in their terms and conditions (see paragraphs 50–59 for identifying and accounting for variable consideration).

If in accordance with paragraph Aus8.1 a not-for-profit public sector licensor elects not to apply the requirements in paragraphs 9–90 (and accompanying Application Guidance) to either short-term licences or licences for which the transaction price is of low value, the licensor shall recognise the revenue associated with those licences either at the point in time the licence is issued, or on a straight-line basis over the licence term or another systematic basis.

If in accordance with paragraph Aus8.1 a not-for-profit public sector licensor elects not to apply the requirements in paragraphs 9–90 (and accompanying Application Guidance) to short-term licences, a licence shall be treated as if it is a new licence for the purposes of AASB 15 if there is:

(a)            a modification to the scope of, or the consideration for, the licence; or

(b)            any change in the term of the licence.

The election for short-term licences under paragraph Aus8.1 shall be made by class of licence. A class of licences is a grouping of licences of a similar nature and similar rights and obligations attached to the licence. The election for licences for which the transaction price is of low value can be made on a licence-by-licence basis.

An entity shall account for a contract with a customer that is within the scope of this Standard only when all of the following criteria are met:

(a)            the parties to the contract have approved the contract (in writing, orally or in accordance with other customary business practices) and are committed to perform their respective obligations;

(b)            the entity can identify each party’s rights regarding the goods or services to be transferred;

(c)            the entity can identify the payment terms for the goods or services to be transferred;

(d)            the contract has commercial substance (ie the risk, timing or amount of the entity’s future cash flows is expected to change as a result of the contract); and

(e)            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. In evaluating whether collectability of an amount of consideration is probable, an entity shall consider only the customer’s ability and intention to pay that amount of consideration when it is due. The amount of consideration to which the entity will be entitled may be less than the price stated in the contract if the consideration is variable because the entity may offer the customer a price concession (see paragraph 52).

Notwithstanding paragraph 9, in respect of not-for-profit entities, if a contract that would otherwise be within the scope of AASB 15 does not meet the criteria in paragraph 9 as it is unenforceable or not sufficiently specific, it is not a contract with a customer within the scope of AASB 15 (see paragraph F5). An entity shall consider the requirements of AASB 1058 in accounting for such contracts.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations. Enforceability of the rights and obligations in a contract is a matter of law. Contracts can be written, oral or implied by an entity’s customary business practices. The practices and processes for establishing contracts with customers vary across legal jurisdictions, industries and entities. In addition, they may vary within an entity (for example, they may depend on the class of customer or the nature of the promised goods or services). An entity shall consider those practices and processes in determining whether and when an agreement with a customer creates enforceable rights and obligations.

Some contracts with customers may have no fixed duration and can be terminated or modified by either party at any time. Other contracts may automatically renew on a periodic basis that is specified in the contract. An entity shall apply this Standard to the duration of the contract (ie the contractual period) in which the parties to the contract have present enforceable rights and obligations.

For the purpose of applying this Standard, a contract does not exist if each party to the contract has the unilateral enforceable right to terminate a wholly unperformed contract without compensating the other party (or parties). A contract is wholly unperformed if both of the following criteria are met:

(a)            the entity has not yet transferred any promised goods or services to the customer; and

(b)            the entity has not yet received, and is not yet entitled to receive, any consideration in exchange for promised goods or services.

If a contract with a customer meets the criteria in paragraph 9 at contract inception, an entity shall not reassess those criteria unless there is an indication of a significant change in facts and circumstances. For example, if a customer’s ability to pay the consideration deteriorates significantly, an entity would reassess whether it is probable that the entity will collect the consideration to which the entity will be entitled in exchange for the remaining goods or services that will be transferred to the customer.

If a contract with a customer does not meet the criteria in paragraph 9, an entity shall continue to assess the contract to determine whether the criteria in paragraph 9 are subsequently met.

When a contract with a customer does not meet the criteria in paragraph 9 and an entity receives consideration from the customer, the entity shall recognise the consideration received as revenue only when either of the following events has occurred:

(a)            the entity has no remaining obligations to transfer goods or services to the customer and all, or substantially all, of the consideration promised by the customer has been received by the entity and is non-refundable; or

(b)            the contract has been terminated and the consideration received from the customer is non-refundable.

An entity shall recognise the consideration received from a customer as a liability until one of the events in paragraph 15 occurs or until the criteria in paragraph 9 are subsequently met (see paragraph 14). Depending on the facts and circumstances relating to the contract, the liability recognised represents the entity’s obligation to either transfer goods or services in the future or refund the consideration received. In either case, the liability shall be measured at the amount of consideration received from the customer.

An entity shall combine two or more contracts entered into at or near the same time with the same customer (or related parties of the customer) and account for the contracts as a single contract if one or more of the following criteria are met:

(a)            the contracts are negotiated as a package with a single commercial objective;

(b)            the amount of consideration to be paid in one contract depends on the price or performance of the other contract; or

(c)            the goods or services promised in the contracts (or some goods or services promised in each of the contracts) are a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 22–30.

A contract modification is a change in the scope or price (or both) of a contract that is approved by the parties to the contract. In some industries and jurisdictions, a contract modification may be described as a change order, a variation or an amendment. A contract modification exists when the parties to a contract approve a modification that either creates new or changes existing enforceable rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. A contract modification could be approved in writing, by oral agreement or implied by customary business practices. If the parties to the contract have not approved a contract modification, an entity shall continue to apply this Standard to the existing contract until the contract modification is approved.

A contract modification may exist even though the parties to the contract have a dispute about the scope or price (or both) of the modification or the parties have approved a change in the scope of the contract but have not yet determined the corresponding change in price. In determining whether the rights and obligations that are created or changed by a modification are enforceable, an entity shall consider all relevant facts and circumstances including the terms of the contract and other evidence. If the parties to a contract have approved a change in the scope of the contract but have not yet determined the corresponding change in price, an entity shall estimate the change to the transaction price arising from the modification in accordance with paragraphs 50–54 on estimating variable consideration and paragraphs 56–58 on constraining estimates of variable consideration.

An entity shall account for a contract modification as a separate contract if both of the following conditions are present:

(a)            the scope of the contract increases because of the addition of promised goods or services that are distinct (in accordance with paragraphs 26–30); and

(b)            the price of the contract increases by an amount of consideration that reflects the entity’s stand-alone selling prices of the additional promised goods or services and any appropriate adjustments to that price to reflect the circumstances of the particular contract. For example, an entity may adjust the stand-alone selling price of an additional good or service for a discount that the customer receives, because it is not necessary for the entity to incur the selling-related costs that it would incur when selling a similar good or service to a new customer.

If a contract modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 20, an entity shall account for the promised goods or services not yet transferred at the date of the contract modification (ie the remaining promised goods or services) in whichever of the following ways is applicable:

(a)            An entity shall account for the contract modification as if it were a termination of the existing contract and the creation of a new contract, if the remaining goods or services are distinct from the goods or services transferred on or before the date of the contract modification. The amount of consideration to be allocated to the remaining performance obligations (or to the remaining distinct goods or services in a single performance obligation identified in accordance with paragraph 22(b)) is the sum of:

(i)             the consideration promised by the customer (including amounts already received from the customer) that was included in the estimate of the transaction price and that had not been recognised as revenue; and

(ii)            the consideration promised as part of the contract modification.

(b)            An entity shall account for the contract modification as if it were a part of the existing contract if the remaining goods or services are not distinct and, therefore, form part of a single performance obligation that is partially satisfied at the date of the contract modification. The effect that the contract modification has on the transaction price, and on the entity’s measure of progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation, is recognised as an adjustment to revenue (either as an increase in or a reduction of revenue) at the date of the contract modification (ie the adjustment to revenue is made on a cumulative catch-up basis).

(c)            If the remaining goods or services are a combination of items (a) and (b), then the entity shall account for the effects of the modification on the unsatisfied (including partially unsatisfied) performance obligations in the modified contract in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of this paragraph.

At contract inception, an entity shall assess the goods or services promised in a contract with a customer and shall identify as a performance obligation each promise to transfer to the customer either:

(a)            a good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) that is distinct; or

(b)            a series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and that have the same pattern of transfer to the customer (see paragraph 23).

A series of distinct goods or services has the same pattern of transfer to the customer if both of the following criteria are met:

(a)            each distinct good or service in the series that the entity promises to transfer to the customer would meet the criteria in paragraph 35 to be a performance obligation satisfied over time; and

(b)            in accordance with paragraphs 39–40, the same method would be used to measure the entity’s progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation to transfer each distinct good or service in the series to the customer.

A contract with a customer generally explicitly states the goods or services that an entity promises to transfer to a customer. However, the performance obligations identified in a contract with a customer may not be limited to the goods or services that are explicitly stated in that contract. This is because a contract with a customer 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.

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. For example, a services provider may need to perform various administrative tasks to set up a contract. The performance of those tasks does not transfer a service to the customer as the tasks are performed. Therefore, those setup activities are not a performance obligation.

Depending on the contract, promised goods or services may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)            sale of goods produced by an entity (for example, inventory of a manufacturer)

(b)            resale of goods purchased by an entity (for example, merchandise of a retailer);

(c)            resale of rights to goods or services purchased by an entity (for example, a ticket resold by an entity acting as a principal, as described in paragraphs B34–B38);

(d)            performing a contractually agreed-upon task (or tasks) for a customer

(e)            providing a service of standing ready to provide goods or services (for example, unspecified updates to software that are provided on a when-and-if-available basis) or of making goods or services available for a customer to use as and when the customer decides;

(f)            providing a service of arranging for another party to transfer goods or services to a customer (for example, acting as an agent of another party, as described in paragraphs B34–B38);

(g)            granting rights to goods or services to be provided in the future that a customer can resell or provide to its customer (for example, an entity selling a product to a retailer promises to transfer an additional good or service to an individual who purchases the product from the retailer);

(h)            constructing, manufacturing or developing an asset on behalf of a customer;

(i)            granting licences (see paragraphs B52–B63B); and

(j)            granting options to purchase additional goods or services (when those options provide a customer with a material right, as described in paragraphs B39–B43).

Notwithstanding paragraph 26(i), a not-for-profit public sector licensor shall refer to Appendix G for guidance on accounting for revenue from licences issued.

A good or service that is promised to a customer is distinct if both of the following criteria are met:

(a)            the customer can benefit from the good or service either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer (ie the good or service is capable of being distinct); and

(b)            the entity’s promise to transfer the good or service to the customer is separately identifiable from other promises in the contract (ie the promise to transfer the good or service is distinct within the context of the contract).

A customer can benefit from a good or service in accordance with paragraph 27(a) if the good or service could be used, consumed, sold for an amount that is greater than scrap value or otherwise held in a way that generates economic benefits. For some goods or services, a customer may be able to benefit from a good or service on its own. For other goods or services, a customer may be able to benefit from the good or service only in conjunction with other readily available resources. A readily available resource is a good or service that is sold separately (by the entity or another entity) or a resource that the customer has already obtained from the entity (including goods or services that the entity will have already transferred to the customer under the contract) or from other transactions or events. Various factors may provide evidence that the customer can benefit from a good or service either on its own or in conjunction with other readily available resources. For example, the fact that the entity regularly sells a good or service separately would indicate that a customer can benefit from the good or service on its own or with other readily available resources.

In assessing whether an entity’s promises to transfer goods or services to the customer are separately identifiable in accordance with paragraph 27(b), the objective is to determine whether the nature of the promise, within the context of the contract, is to transfer each of those goods or services individually or, instead, to transfer a combined item or items to which the promised goods or services are inputs. Factors that indicate that two or more promises to transfer goods or services to a customer are not separately identifiable include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)            the entity provides a significant service of integrating the goods or services with other goods or services promised in the contract into a bundle of goods or services that represent the combined output or outputs for which the customer has contracted. In other words, the entity is using the goods or services as inputs to produce or deliver the combined output or outputs specified by the customer. A combined output or outputs might include more than one phase, element or unit.

(b)            one or more of the goods or services significantly modifies or customises, or are significantly modified or customised by, one or more of the other goods or services promised in the contract.

(c)            the goods or services are highly interdependent or highly interrelated. In other words, each of the goods or services is significantly affected by one or more of the other goods or services in the contract. For example, in some cases, two or more goods or services are significantly affected by each other because the entity would not be able to fulfil its promise by transferring each of the goods or services independently.

If a promised good or service is not distinct, an entity shall combine that good or service with other promised goods or services until it identifies a bundle of goods or services that is distinct. In some cases, that would result in the entity accounting for all the goods or services promised in a contract as a single performance obligation.

An entity shall recognise revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation by transferring a promised good or service (ie an asset) to a customer. An asset is transferred when (or as) the customer obtains control of that asset.

For each performance obligation identified in accordance with paragraphs 22–30, an entity shall determine at contract inception whether it satisfies the performance obligation over time (in accordance with paragraphs 35–37) or satisfies the performance obligation at a point in time (in accordance with paragraph 38). If an entity does not satisfy a performance obligation over time, the performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time.

Goods and services are assets, even if only momentarily, when they are received and used (as in the case of many services). 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. The benefits of an asset are the potential cash flows (inflows or savings in outflows) that can be obtained directly or indirectly in many ways, such as by:

(a)            using the asset to produce goods or provide services (including public services);

(b)            using the asset to enhance the value of other assets;

(c)            using the asset to settle liabilities or reduce expenses;

(d)            selling or exchanging the asset;

(e)            pledging the asset to secure a loan; and

(f)            holding the asset.

When evaluating whether a customer obtains control of an asset, an entity shall consider any agreement to repurchase the asset (see paragraphs B64–B76).

An entity transfers control of a good or service over time and, therefore, satisfies a performance obligation and recognises revenue 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 paragraph 36) and the entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date (see paragraph 37).

An asset created by an entity’s performance does not have an alternative use to an entity if the entity is either restricted contractually from readily directing the asset for another use during the creation or enhancement of that asset or limited practically from readily directing the asset in its completed state for another use. The assessment of whether an asset has an alternative use to the entity is made at contract inception. After contract inception, an entity shall not update the assessment of the alternative use of an asset unless the parties to the contract approve a contract modification that substantively changes the performance obligation. Paragraphs B6–B8 provide guidance for assessing whether an asset has an alternative use to an entity.

An entity shall consider the terms of the contract, as well as any laws that apply to the contract, when evaluating whether it has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date in accordance with paragraph 35(c). The right to payment for performance completed to date does not need to be for a fixed amount. However, 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. Paragraphs B9–B13 provide guidance for assessing the existence and enforceability of a right to payment and whether an entity’s right to payment would entitle the entity to be paid for its performance completed to date.

If a performance obligation is not satisfied over time in accordance with paragraphs 35–37, an entity satisfies the performance obligation at a point in time. To determine the point in time at which a customer obtains control of a promised asset and the entity satisfies a performance obligation, the entity shall consider the requirements for control in paragraphs 31–34. In addition, an entity shall consider indicators of the transfer of control, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)            The entity has a present right to payment for the asset—if a customer is presently obliged to pay for an asset, then that may indicate that the customer has obtained the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset in exchange.

(b)            The customer has legal title to the asset—legal title may indicate which party to a contract has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, an asset or to restrict the access of other entities to those benefits. Therefore, the transfer of legal title of an asset may indicate that the customer has obtained control of the asset. If an entity retains legal title solely as protection against the customer’s failure to pay, those rights of the entity would not preclude the customer from obtaining control of an asset.

(c)            The entity has transferred physical possession of the asset—the customer’s physical possession of an asset may indicate that the customer has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset or to restrict the access of other entities to those benefits. However, physical possession may not coincide with control of an asset. For example, in some repurchase agreements and in some consignment arrangements, a customer or consignee may have physical possession of an asset that the entity controls. Conversely, in some bill-and-hold arrangements, the entity may have physical possession of an asset that the customer controls. Paragraphs B64–B76, B77–B78 and B79–B82 provide guidance on accounting for repurchase agreements, consignment arrangements and bill-and-hold arrangements, respectively.

(d)            The customer has the significant risks and rewards of ownership of the asset—the transfer of the significant risks and rewards of ownership of an asset to the customer may indicate that the customer has obtained the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset. However, when evaluating the risks and rewards of ownership of a promised asset, an entity shall exclude any risks that give rise to a separate performance obligation in addition to the performance obligation to transfer the asset. For example, an entity may have transferred control of an asset to a customer but not yet satisfied an additional performance obligation to provide maintenance services related to the transferred asset.

(e)            The customer has accepted the asset—the customer’s acceptance of an asset may indicate that it has obtained the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset. To evaluate the effect of a contractual customer acceptance clause on when control of an asset is transferred, an entity shall consider the guidance in paragraphs B83–B86.

For each performance obligation satisfied over time in accordance with paragraphs 35–37, an entity shall recognise revenue over time by measuring the progress towards complete satisfaction of that performance obligation. The objective when measuring progress is to depict an entity’s performance in transferring control of goods or services promised to a customer (ie the satisfaction of an entity’s performance obligation).

An entity shall apply a single method of measuring progress for each performance obligation satisfied over time and the entity shall apply that method consistently to similar performance obligations and in similar circumstances. At the end of each reporting period, an entity shall remeasure its progress towards complete satisfaction of a performance obligation satisfied over time.

Appropriate methods of measuring progress include output methods and input methods. Paragraphs B14–B19 provide guidance for using output methods and input methods to measure an entity’s progress towards complete satisfaction of a performance obligation. In determining the appropriate method for measuring progress, an entity shall consider the nature of the good or service that the entity promised to transfer to the customer.

When applying a method for measuring progress, an entity shall exclude from the measure of progress any goods or services for which the entity does not transfer control to a customer. Conversely, an entity shall include in the measure of progress any goods or services for which the entity does transfer control to a customer when satisfying that performance obligation.

As circumstances change over time, an entity shall update its measure of progress to reflect any changes in the outcome of the performance obligation. Such changes to an entity’s measure of progress shall be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate in accordance with AASB 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors.

An entity shall recognise revenue for a performance obligation satisfied over time only if the entity can reasonably measure its progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. An entity would not be able to reasonably measure its progress towards complete satisfaction of a performance obligation if it lacks reliable information that would be required to apply an appropriate method of measuring progress.

In some circumstances (for example, in the early stages of a contract), an entity may not be able to reasonably measure the outcome of a performance obligation, but the entity expects to recover the costs incurred in satisfying the performance obligation. In those circumstances, the entity shall recognise revenue only to the extent of the costs incurred until such time that it can reasonably measure the outcome of the performance obligation.

When (or as) a performance obligation is satisfied, an entity shall recognise as revenue the amount of the transaction price (which excludes estimates of variable consideration that are constrained in accordance with paragraphs 56–58) that is allocated to that performance obligation.

An entity shall consider the terms of the contract and its customary business practices to determine 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, excluding amounts collected on behalf of third parties (for example, some sales taxes). The consideration promised in a contract with a customer may include fixed amounts, variable amounts, or both.

The nature, timing and amount of consideration promised by a customer affect the estimate of the transaction price. When determining the transaction price, an entity shall consider the effects of all of the following:

(a)            variable consideration (see paragraphs 50–55 and 59);

(b)            constraining estimates of variable consideration (see paragraphs 56–58);

(c)            the existence of a significant financing component in the contract (see paragraphs 60–65);

(d)            non-cash consideration (see paragraphs 66–69); and

(e)            consideration payable to a customer (see paragraphs 70–72).

For the purpose of determining the transaction price, an entity shall assume that the goods or services will be transferred to the customer as promised in accordance with the existing contract and that the contract will not be cancelled, renewed or modified.

If the consideration promised in a contract includes a variable amount, an entity shall estimate the amount of consideration to which the entity will be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services to a customer.

An amount of consideration can vary because of discounts, rebates, refunds, credits, price concessions, incentives, performance bonuses, penalties or other similar items. The promised consideration can also vary if an entity’s entitlement to the consideration is contingent on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event. For example, an amount of consideration would be variable if either a product was sold with a right of return or a fixed amount is promised as a performance bonus on achievement of a specified milestone.

The variability relating to the consideration promised by a customer may be explicitly stated in the contract. In addition to the terms of the contract, the promised consideration is variable if either of the following circumstances exists:

(a)            the customer has a valid expectation arising from an entity’s customary business practices, published policies or specific statements that the entity will accept an amount of consideration that is less than the price stated in the contract. That is, it is expected that the entity will offer a price concession. Depending on the jurisdiction, industry or customer this offer may be referred to as a discount, rebate, refund or credit.

(b)            other facts and circumstances indicate that the entity’s intention, when entering into the contract with the customer, is to offer a price concession to the customer.

An entity shall estimate an amount of variable consideration by using either of the following methods, depending on which method the entity expects to better predict the amount of consideration to which it will be entitled:

(a)            The expected value—the expected value is the sum of probability-weighted amounts in a range of possible consideration amounts. An expected value may be an appropriate estimate of the amount of variable consideration if an entity has a large number of contracts with similar characteristics.

(b)            The most likely amount—the most likely amount is the single most likely amount in a range of possible consideration amounts (ie the single most likely outcome of the contract). The most likely amount may be an appropriate estimate of the amount of variable consideration if the contract has only two possible outcomes (for example, an entity either achieves a performance bonus or does not).

An entity shall apply one method consistently throughout the contract when estimating the effect of an uncertainty on an amount of variable consideration to which the entity will be entitled. In addition, an entity shall consider all the information (historical, current and forecast) that is reasonably available to the entity and shall identify a reasonable number of possible consideration amounts. The information that an entity uses to estimate the amount of variable consideration would typically be similar to the information that the entity’s management uses during the bid-and-proposal process and in establishing prices for promised goods or services.

An entity shall recognise a refund liability if the entity receives consideration from a customer and expects to refund some or all of that consideration to the customer. A refund liability is measured at the amount of consideration received (or receivable) for which the entity does not expect to be entitled (ie amounts not included in the transaction price). The refund liability (and corresponding change in the transaction price and, therefore, the contract liability) shall be updated at the end of each reporting period for changes in circumstances. To account for a refund liability relating to a sale with a right of return, an entity shall apply the guidance in paragraphs B20–B27.

An entity shall include in the transaction price some or all of an amount of variable consideration estimated in accordance with paragraph 53 only to the extent that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised will not occur when the uncertainty associated with the variable consideration is subsequently resolved.

In assessing whether it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised will not occur once the uncertainty related to the variable consideration is subsequently resolved, an entity shall consider both the likelihood and the magnitude of the revenue reversal. Factors that could increase the likelihood or the magnitude of a revenue reversal include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

(a)            the amount of consideration is highly susceptible to factors outside the entity’s influence. Those factors may include volatility in a market, the judgement or actions of third parties, weather conditions and a high risk of obsolescence of the promised good or service.

(b)            the uncertainty about the amount of consideration is not expected to be resolved for a long period of time.

(c)            the entity’s experience (or other evidence) with similar types of contracts is limited, or that experience (or other evidence) has limited predictive value.

(d)            the entity has a practice of either offering a broad range of price concessions or changing the payment terms and conditions of similar contracts in similar circumstances.

(e)            the contract has a large number and broad range of possible consideration amounts.

An entity shall apply paragraph B63 to account for consideration in the form of a sales-based or usage-based royalty that is promised in exchange for a licence of intellectual property.

At the end of each reporting period, an entity shall update the estimated transaction price (including updating its assessment of whether an estimate of variable consideration is constrained) to represent faithfully the circumstances present at the end of the reporting period and the changes in circumstances during the reporting period. The entity shall account for changes in the transaction price in accordance with paragraphs 87–90.

In determining the transaction price, an entity shall adjust the promised amount of consideration for the effects of the time value of money if the timing of payments agreed to by the parties to the contract (either explicitly or implicitly) provides the customer or the entity with a significant benefit of financing the transfer of goods or services to the customer. In those circumstances, the contract contains a significant financing component. A significant financing component may exist regardless of whether the promise of financing is explicitly stated in the contract or implied by the payment terms agreed to by the parties to the contract.

The objective when adjusting the promised amount of consideration for a significant financing component is for an entity to recognise revenue at an amount that reflects the price that a customer would have paid for the promised goods or services if the customer had paid cash for those goods or services when (or as) they transfer to the customer (ie the cash selling price). An entity shall consider all relevant facts and circumstances in assessing whether a contract contains a financing component and whether that financing component is significant to the contract, including both of the following:

(a)            the difference, if any, between the amount of promised consideration and the cash selling price of the promised goods or services; and

(b)            the combined effect of both of the following:

(i)             the expected length of time between when the entity transfers the promised goods or services to the customer and when the customer pays for those goods or services; and

(ii)            the prevailing interest rates in the relevant market.

Notwithstanding the assessment in paragraph 61, a contract with a customer would not have a significant financing component if any of the following factors exist:

(a)            the customer paid for the goods or services in advance and the timing of the transfer of those goods or services is at the discretion of the customer.

(b)            a substantial amount of the consideration promised by the customer is variable and the amount or timing of that consideration varies on the basis of the occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event that is not substantially within the control of the customer or the entity (for example, if the consideration is a sales-based royalty).

(c)            the difference between the promised consideration and the cash selling price of the good or service (as described in paragraph 61) arises for reasons other than the provision of finance to either the customer or the entity, and the difference between those amounts is proportional to the reason for the difference. For example, the payment terms might provide the entity or the customer with protection from the other party failing to adequately complete some or all of its obligations under the contract.

As a practical expedient, an entity need not adjust the promised amount of consideration for the effects of a significant financing component if the entity expects, at contract inception, that the period between when the entity transfers a promised good or service to a customer and when the customer pays for that good or service will be one year or less.

To meet the objective in paragraph 61 when adjusting the promised amount of consideration for a significant financing component, an entity shall use the discount rate that would be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the entity and its customer at contract inception. That rate would reflect the credit characteristics of the party receiving financing in the contract, as well as any collateral or security provided by the customer or the entity, including assets transferred in the contract. An entity may be able to determine that rate by identifying the rate that discounts the nominal amount of the promised consideration to the price that the customer would pay in cash for the goods or services when (or as) they transfer to the customer. After contract inception, an entity shall not update the discount rate for changes in interest rates or other circumstances (such as a change in the assessment of the customer’s credit risk).

An entity shall present the effects of financing (interest revenue or interest expense) separately from revenue from contracts with customers in the statement of comprehensive income. Interest revenue or interest expense is recognised only to the extent that a contract asset (or receivable) or a contract liability is recognised in accounting for a contract with a customer.

To determine the transaction price for contracts in which a customer promises consideration in a form other than cash, an entity shall measure the non-cash consideration (or promise of non-cash consideration) at fair value.

If an entity cannot reasonably estimate the fair value of the non-cash consideration, the entity shall measure the consideration indirectly by reference to the stand-alone selling price of the goods or services promised to the customer (or class of customer) in exchange for the consideration.

The fair value of the non-cash consideration may vary because of the form of the consideration (for example, a change in the price of a share to which an entity is entitled to receive from a customer). If the fair value of the non-cash consideration promised by a customer varies for reasons other than only the form of the consideration (for example, the fair value could vary because of the entity’s performance), an entity shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 56–58.

If a customer contributes goods or services (for example, materials, equipment or labour) to facilitate an entity’s fulfilment of the contract, the entity shall assess whether it obtains control of those contributed goods or services. If so, the entity shall account for the contributed goods or services as non-cash consideration received from the customer.

Consideration payable to a customer includes cash amounts that an entity pays, or expects to pay, to the customer (or to other parties that purchase the entity’s goods or services from the customer). Consideration payable to a customer also includes credit or other items (for example, a coupon or voucher) that can be applied against amounts owed to the entity (or to other parties that purchase the entity’s goods or services from the customer). An entity shall account for consideration payable to a customer as a reduction of the transaction price and, therefore, of revenue unless the payment to the customer is in exchange for a distinct good or service (as described in paragraphs 26–30) that the customer transfers to the entity. If the consideration payable to a customer includes a variable amount, an entity shall estimate the transaction price (including assessing whether the estimate of variable consideration is constrained) in accordance with paragraphs 50–58.

If consideration payable to a customer is a payment for a distinct good or service from the customer, then an entity shall account for the purchase of the good or service in the same way that it accounts for other purchases from suppliers. If the amount of consideration payable to the customer exceeds the fair value of the distinct good or service that the entity receives from the customer, then the entity shall account for such an excess as a reduction of the transaction price. If the entity cannot reasonably estimate the fair value of the good or service received from the customer, it shall account for all of the consideration payable to the customer as a reduction of the transaction price.

Accordingly, if consideration payable to a customer is accounted for as a reduction of the transaction price, an entity shall recognise the reduction of revenue when (or as) the later of either of the following events occurs:

(a)            the entity recognises revenue for the transfer of the related goods or services to the customer; and

(b)            the entity pays or promises to pay the consideration (even if the payment is conditional on a future event). That promise might be implied by the entity’s customary business practices.

The objective when allocating the transaction price is for an entity to allocate the transaction price to each performance obligation (or distinct good or service) in an amount that depicts the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services to the customer.

To meet the allocation objective, an entity shall allocate the transaction price to each performance obligation identified in the contract on a relative stand-alone selling price basis in accordance with paragraphs 76–80, except as specified in paragraphs 81–83 (for allocating discounts) and paragraphs 84–86 (for allocating consideration that includes variable amounts).

Paragraphs 76–86 do not apply if a contract has only one performance obligation. However, paragraphs 84–86 may apply if an entity promises to transfer a series of distinct goods or services identified as a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) and the promised consideration includes variable amounts.

To allocate the transaction price to each performance obligation on a relative stand-alone selling price basis, an entity shall determine the stand-alone selling price at contract inception of the distinct good or service underlying each performance obligation in the contract and allocate the transaction price in proportion to those stand-alone selling prices.

The stand-alone selling price is the price at which an entity would sell a promised good or service separately to a customer. The best evidence of a stand-alone selling price is the observable price of a good or service when the entity sells that good or service separately in similar circumstances and to similar customers. A contractually stated price or a list price for a good or service may be (but shall not be presumed to be) the stand-alone selling price of that good or service.

If a stand-alone selling price is not directly observable, an entity shall estimate the stand-alone selling price at an amount that would result in the allocation of the transaction price meeting the allocation objective in paragraph 73. When estimating a stand-alone selling price, an entity shall consider all information (including market conditions, entity-specific factors and information about the customer or class of customer) that is reasonably available to the entity. In doing so, an entity shall maximise the use of observable inputs and apply estimation methods consistently in similar circumstances.

Suitable methods for estimating the stand-alone selling price of a good or service include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)            Adjusted market assessment approach—an entity could evaluate the market in which it sells goods or services and estimate the price that a customer in that market would be willing to pay for those goods or services. That approach might also include referring to prices from the entity’s competitors for similar goods or services and adjusting those prices as necessary to reflect the entity’s costs and margins.

(b)            Expected cost plus a margin approach—an entity could forecast its expected costs of satisfying a performance obligation and then add an appropriate margin for that good or service.

(c)            Residual approach—an entity may estimate the stand-alone selling price by reference to the total transaction price less the sum of the observable stand-alone selling prices of other goods or services promised in the contract. However, an entity may use a residual approach to estimate, in accordance with paragraph 78, the stand-alone selling price of a good or service only if one of the following criteria is met:

(i)             the entity sells the same good or service to different customers (at or near the same time) for a broad range of amounts (ie the selling price is highly variable because a representative stand-alone selling price is not discernible from past transactions or other observable evidence); or

(ii)            the entity has not yet established a price for that good or service and the good or service has not previously been sold on a stand-alone basis (ie the selling price is uncertain).

A combination of methods may need to be used to estimate the stand-alone selling prices of the goods or services promised in the contract if two or more of those goods or services have highly variable or uncertain stand-alone selling prices. For example, an entity may use a residual approach to estimate the aggregate stand-alone selling price for those promised goods or services with highly variable or uncertain stand-alone selling prices and then use another method to estimate the stand-alone selling prices of the individual goods or services relative to that estimated aggregate stand-alone selling price determined by the residual approach. When an entity uses a combination of methods to estimate the stand-alone selling price of each promised good or service in the contract, the entity shall evaluate whether allocating the transaction price at those estimated stand-alone selling prices would be consistent with the allocation objective in paragraph 73 and the requirements for estimating stand-alone selling prices in paragraph 78.

A customer receives a discount for purchasing a bundle of goods or services if the sum of the stand-alone selling prices of those promised goods or services in the contract exceeds the promised consideration in a contract. Except when an entity has observable evidence in accordance with paragraph 82 that the entire discount relates to only one or more, but not all, performance obligations in a contract, the entity shall allocate a discount proportionately to all performance obligations in the contract. The proportionate allocation of the discount in those circumstances is a consequence of the entity allocating the transaction price to each performance obligation on the basis of the relative stand-alone selling prices of the underlying distinct goods or services.

An entity shall allocate a discount entirely to one or more, but not all, performance obligations in the contract if all of the following criteria are met:

(a)            the entity regularly sells each distinct good or service (or each bundle of distinct goods or services) in the contract on a stand-alone basis;

(b)            the entity also regularly sells on a stand-alone basis a bundle (or bundles) of some of those distinct goods or services at a discount to the stand-alone selling prices of the goods or services in each bundle; and

(c)            the discount attributable to each bundle of goods or services described in paragraph 82(b) is substantially the same as the discount in the contract and an analysis of the goods or services in each bundle provides observable evidence of the performance obligation (or performance obligations) to which the entire discount in the contract belongs.

If a discount is allocated entirely to one or more performance obligations in the contract in accordance with paragraph 82, an entity shall allocate the discount before using the residual approach to estimate the stand-alone selling price of a good or service in accordance with paragraph 79(c).

Variable consideration that is promised in a contract may be attributable to the entire contract or to a specific part of the contract, such as either of the following:

(a)            one or more, but not all, performance obligations in the contract (for example, a bonus may be contingent on an entity transferring a promised good or service within a specified period of time); or

(b)            one or more, but not all, distinct goods or services promised in a series of distinct goods or services that forms part of a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) (for example, the consideration promised for the second year of a two-year cleaning service contract will increase on the basis of movements in a specified inflation index).

An entity shall allocate a variable amount (and subsequent changes to that amount) entirely to a performance obligation or to a distinct good or service that forms part of a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) if both of the following criteria are met:

(a)            the terms of a variable payment relate specifically to the entity’s efforts to satisfy the performance obligation or transfer the distinct good or service (or to a specific outcome from satisfying the performance obligation or transferring the distinct good or service); and

(b)            allocating the variable amount of consideration entirely to the performance obligation or the distinct good or service is consistent with the allocation objective in paragraph 73 when considering all of the performance obligations and payment terms in the contract.

The allocation requirements in paragraphs 73–83 shall be applied to allocate the remaining amount of the transaction price that does not meet the criteria in paragraph 85.

After contract inception, the transaction price can change for various reasons, including the resolution of uncertain events or other changes in circumstances that change the amount of consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for the promised goods or services.

An entity shall allocate to the performance obligations in the contract any subsequent changes in the transaction price on the same basis as at contract inception. Consequently, an entity shall not reallocate the transaction price to reflect changes in stand-alone selling prices after contract inception. Amounts allocated to a satisfied performance obligation shall be recognised as revenue, or as a reduction of revenue, in the period in which the transaction price changes.

An entity shall allocate a change in the transaction price entirely to one or more, but not all, performance obligations or distinct goods or services promised in a series that forms part of a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) only if the criteria in paragraph 85 on allocating variable consideration are met.

An entity shall account for a change in the transaction price that arises as a result of a contract modification in accordance with paragraphs 18–21. However, for a change in the transaction price that occurs after a contract modification, an entity shall apply paragraphs 87–89 to allocate the change in the transaction price in whichever of the following ways is applicable:

(a)            An entity shall allocate the change in the transaction price to the performance obligations identified in the contract before the modification if, and to the extent that, the change in the transaction price is attributable to an amount of variable consideration promised before the modification and the modification is accounted for in accordance with paragraph 21(a).

(b)            In all other cases in which the modification was not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 20, an entity shall allocate the change in the transaction price to the performance obligations in the modified contract (ie the performance obligations that were unsatisfied or partially unsatisfied immediately after the modification).

An entity shall recognise as an asset the incremental costs of obtaining a contract with a customer if the entity expects to recover those costs.

The incremental costs of obtaining a contract are those costs that an entity incurs to obtain a contract with a customer that it would not have incurred if the contract had not been obtained (for example, a sales commission).

Costs to obtain a contract that would have been incurred regardless of whether the contract was obtained shall be recognised as an expense when incurred, unless those costs are explicitly chargeable to the customer regardless of whether the contract is obtained.

As a practical expedient, an entity may recognise the incremental costs of obtaining a contract as an expense when incurred if the amortisation period of the asset that the entity otherwise would have recognised is one year or less.

If the costs incurred in fulfilling a contract with a customer are not within the scope of another Standard (for example, AASB 102 Inventories, AASB 116 Property, Plant and Equipment or AASB 138 Intangible Assets), an entity shall recognise an asset from the costs incurred to fulfil a contract only if those costs meet all of the following criteria:

(a)            the costs relate directly to a contract or to an anticipated contract that the entity can specifically identify (for example, costs relating to services to be provided under renewal of an existing contract or costs of designing an asset to be transferred under a specific contract that has not yet been approved);

(b)            the costs generate or enhance resources of the entity that will be used in satisfying (or in continuing to satisfy) performance obligations in the future; and

(c)            the costs are expected to be recovered.

For costs incurred in fulfilling a contract with a customer that are within the scope of another Standard, an entity shall account for those costs in accordance with those other Standards.

Costs that relate directly to a contract (or a specific anticipated contract) include any of the following:

(a)            direct labour (for example, salaries and wages of employees who provide the promised services directly to the customer);

(b)            direct materials (for example, supplies used in providing the promised services to a customer);

(c)            allocations of costs that relate directly to the contract or to contract activities (for example, costs of contract management and supervision, insurance and depreciation of tools, equipment and right-of-use assets used in fulfilling the contract);

(d)            costs that are explicitly chargeable to the customer under the contract; and

(e)            other costs that are incurred only because an entity entered into the contract (for example, payments to subcontractors).

An entity shall recognise the following costs as expenses when incurred:

(a)            general and administrative costs (unless those costs are explicitly chargeable to the customer under the contract, in which case an entity shall evaluate those costs in accordance with paragraph 97);

(b)            costs of wasted materials, labour or other resources to fulfil the contract that were not reflected in the price of the contract;

(c)            costs that relate to satisfied performance obligations (or partially satisfied performance obligations) in the contract (ie costs that relate to past performance); and

(d)            costs for which an entity cannot distinguish whether the costs relate to unsatisfied performance obligations or to satisfied performance obligations (or partially satisfied performance obligations).

An asset recognised in accordance with paragraph 91 or 95 shall be amortised on a systematic basis that is consistent with the transfer to the customer of the goods or services to which the asset relates. The asset may relate to goods or services to be transferred under a specific anticipated contract (as described in paragraph 95(a)).

An entity shall update the amortisation to reflect a significant change in the entity’s expected timing of transfer to the customer of the goods or services to which the asset relates. Such a change shall be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate in accordance with AASB 108.

An entity shall recognise an impairment loss in profit or loss to the extent that the carrying amount of an asset recognised in accordance with paragraph 91 or 95 exceeds:

(a)            the remaining amount of consideration that the entity expects to receive in exchange for the goods or services to which the asset relates; less

(b)            the costs that relate directly to providing those goods or services and that have not been recognised as expenses (see paragraph 97).

For the purposes of applying paragraph 101 to determine the amount of consideration that an entity expects to receive, an entity shall use the principles for determining the transaction price (except for the requirements in paragraphs 56–58 on constraining estimates of variable consideration) and adjust that amount to reflect the effects of the customer’s credit risk.

Before an entity recognises an impairment loss for an asset recognised in accordance with paragraph 91 or 95, the entity shall recognise any impairment loss for assets related to the contract that are recognised in accordance with another Standard (for example, AASB 102, AASB 116 and AASB 138). After applying the impairment test in paragraph 101, an entity shall include the resulting carrying amount of the asset recognised in accordance with paragraph 91 or 95 in the carrying amount of the cash-generating unit to which it belongs for the purpose of applying AASB 136 Impairment of Assets to that cash-generating unit.

An entity shall recognise in profit or loss a reversal of some or all of an impairment loss previously recognised in accordance with paragraph 101 when the impairment conditions no longer exist or have improved. The increased carrying amount of the asset shall not exceed the amount that would have been determined (net of amortisation) if no impairment loss had been recognised previously.

When either party to a contract has performed, an entity shall present the contract in the statement of financial position as a contract asset or a contract liability, depending on the relationship between the entity’s performance and the customer’s payment. An entity shall present any unconditional rights to consideration separately as a receivable.

If a customer pays consideration, or an entity has a right to an amount of consideration that is unconditional (ie a receivable), before the entity transfers a good or service to the customer, the entity shall present the contract as a contract liability when the payment is made or the payment is due (whichever is earlier). A contract liability is an entity’s obligation to transfer goods or services to a customer for which the entity has received consideration (or an amount of consideration is due) from the customer.

If an entity performs by transferring goods or services to a customer before the customer pays consideration or before payment is due, the entity shall present the contract as a contract asset, excluding any amounts presented as a receivable. A contract asset is an entity’s right to consideration in exchange for goods or services that the entity has transferred to a customer. An entity shall assess a contract asset for impairment in accordance with AASB 9. An impairment of a contract asset shall be measured, presented and disclosed on the same basis as a financial asset that is within the scope of AASB 9 (see also paragraph 113(b)).

A receivable is an entity’s right to consideration that is unconditional. A right to consideration is unconditional if only the passage of time is required before payment of that consideration is due. For example, an entity would recognise a receivable if it has a present right to payment even though that amount may be subject to refund in the future. An entity shall account for a receivable in accordance with AASB 9. Upon initial recognition of a receivable from a contract with a customer, any difference between the measurement of the receivable in accordance with AASB 9 and the corresponding amount of revenue recognised shall be presented as an expense (for example, as an impairment loss).

This Standard uses the terms ‘contract asset’ and ‘contract liability’ but does not prohibit an entity from using alternative descriptions in the statement of financial position for those items. If an entity uses an alternative description for a contract asset, the entity shall provide sufficient information for a user of the financial statements to distinguish between receivables and contract assets.

The objective of the disclosure requirements is for an entity to disclose sufficient information to enable users of financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. To achieve that objective, an entity shall disclose qualitative and quantitative information about all of the following:

(a)            its contracts with customers (see paragraphs 113–122);

(b)            the significant judgements, and changes in the judgements, made in applying this Standard to those contracts (see paragraphs 123–126); and

(c)            any assets recognised from the costs to obtain or fulfil a contract with a customer in accordance with paragraph 91 or 95 (see paragraphs 127–128).

An entity shall consider the level of detail necessary to satisfy the disclosure objective and how much emphasis to place on each of the various requirements. An entity shall aggregate or disaggregate disclosures so that useful information is not obscured by either the inclusion of a large amount of insignificant detail or the aggregation of items that have substantially different characteristics.

An entity need not disclose information in accordance with this Standard if it has provided the information in accordance with another Standard.

An entity shall disclose all of the following amounts for the reporting period unless those amounts are presented separately in the statement of comprehensive income in accordance with other Standards:

(a)            revenue recognised from contracts with customers, which the entity shall disclose separately from its other sources of revenue; and

(b)            any impairment losses recognised (in accordance with AASB 9) on any receivables or contract assets arising from an entity’s contracts with customers, which the entity shall disclose separately from impairment losses from other contracts.

An entity shall disaggregate revenue recognised 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. An entity shall apply the guidance in paragraphs B87–B89 when selecting the categories to use to disaggregate revenue.

In addition, an entity shall disclose sufficient information to enable users of financial statements to understand the relationship between the disclosure of disaggregated revenue (in accordance with paragraph 114) and revenue information that is disclosed for each reportable segment, if the entity applies AASB 8 Operating Segments.

An entity shall disclose all of the following:

(a)            the opening and closing balances of receivables, contract assets and contract liabilities from contracts with customers, if not otherwise separately presented or disclosed;

(b)            revenue recognised in the reporting period that was included in the contract liability balance at the beginning of the period; and

(c)            revenue recognised in the reporting period from performance obligations satisfied (or partially satisfied) in previous periods (for example, changes in transaction price).

An entity shall explain how the timing of satisfaction of its performance obligations (see paragraph 119(a)) relates to the typical timing of payment (see paragraph 119(b)) and the effect that those factors have on the contract asset and the contract liability balances. The explanation provided may use qualitative information.

An entity shall provide an explanation of the significant changes in the contract asset and the contract liability balances during the reporting period. The explanation shall include qualitative and quantitative information. Examples of changes in the entity’s balances of contract assets and contract liabilities include any of the following:

(a)            changes due to business combinations;

(b)            cumulative catch-up adjustments to revenue that affect the corresponding contract asset or contract liability, including adjustments arising from a change in the measure of progress, a change in an estimate of the transaction price (including any changes in the assessment of whether an estimate of variable consideration is constrained) or a contract modification;

(c)            impairment of a contract asset;

(d)            a change in the time frame for a right to consideration to become unconditional (ie for a contract asset to be reclassified to a receivable); and

(e)            a change in the time frame for a performance obligation to be satisfied (ie for the recognition of revenue arising from a contract liability).

An entity shall disclose information about its performance obligations in contracts with customers, including a description of all of the following:

(a)            when the entity typically satisfies its performance obligations (for example, upon shipment, upon delivery, as services are rendered or upon completion of service), including when performance obligations are satisfied in a bill-and-hold arrangement;

(b)            the significant payment terms (for example, when payment is typically due, whether the contract has a significant financing component, whether the consideration amount is variable and whether the estimate of variable consideration is typically constrained in accordance with paragraphs 56–58);

(c)            the nature of the goods or services that the entity has promised to transfer, highlighting any performance obligations to arrange for another party to transfer goods or services (ie if the entity is acting as an agent);

(d)            obligations for returns, refunds and other similar obligations; and

(e)            types of warranties and related obligations.

An entity shall disclose the following information about its remaining performance obligations:

(a)            the aggregate amount of the transaction price allocated to the performance obligations that are unsatisfied (or partially unsatisfied) as of the end of the reporting period; and

(b)            an explanation of when the entity expects to recognise as revenue the amount disclosed in accordance with paragraph 120(a), which the entity shall disclose in either of the following ways:

(i)             on a quantitative basis using the time bands that would be most appropriate for the duration of the remaining performance obligations; or

(ii)            by using qualitative information.

As a practical expedient, an entity need not disclose the information in paragraph 120 for a performance obligation if either of the following conditions is met:

(a)            the performance obligation is part of a contract that has an original expected duration of one year or less; or

(b)            the entity recognises revenue from the satisfaction of the performance obligation in accordance with paragraph B16.

An entity shall explain qualitatively whether it is applying the practical expedient in paragraph 121 and whether any consideration from contracts with customers is not included in the transaction price and, therefore, not included in the information disclosed in accordance with paragraph 120. For example, an estimate of the transaction price would not include any estimated amounts of variable consideration that are constrained (see paragraphs 56–58).

An entity shall disclose the judgements, and changes in the judgements, made in applying this Standard that significantly affect the determination of the amount and timing of revenue from contracts with customers. In particular, an entity shall explain the judgements, and changes in the judgements, used in determining both of the following:

(a)            the timing of satisfaction of performance obligations (see paragraphs 124–125); and

(b)            the transaction price and the amounts allocated to performance obligations (see paragraph 126).

For performance obligations that an entity satisfies over time, an entity shall disclose both of the following:

(a)            the methods used to recognise revenue (for example, a description of the output methods or input methods used and how those methods are applied); and

(b)            an explanation of why the methods used provide a faithful depiction of the transfer of goods or services.

For performance obligations satisfied at a point in time, an entity shall disclose the significant judgements made in evaluating when a customer obtains control of promised goods or services.

An entity shall disclose information about the methods, inputs and assumptions used for all of the following:

(a)            determining the transaction price, which includes, but is not limited to, estimating variable consideration, adjusting the consideration for the effects of the time value of money and measuring non-cash consideration;

(b)            assessing whether an estimate of variable consideration is constrained;

(c)            allocating the transaction price, including estimating stand-alone selling prices of promised goods or services and allocating discounts and variable consideration to a specific part of the contract (if applicable); and

(d)            measuring obligations for returns, refunds and other similar obligations.

An entity shall describe both of the following:

(a)            the judgements made in determining the amount of the costs incurred to obtain or fulfil a contract with a customer (in accordance with paragraph 91 or 95); and

(b)            the method it uses to determine the amortisation for each reporting period.

An entity shall disclose all of the following:

(a)            the closing balances of assets recognised from the costs incurred to obtain or fulfil a contract with a customer (in accordance with paragraph 91 or 95), by main category of asset (for example, costs to obtain contracts with customers, pre-contract costs and setup costs); and

(b)            the amount of amortisation and any impairment losses recognised in the reporting period.

If an entity elects to use the practical expedient in either paragraph 63 (about the existence of a significant financing component) or paragraph 94 (about the incremental costs of obtaining a contract), the entity shall disclose that fact.

[Repealed]

An agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations.

An entity’s right to consideration in exchange for goods or services that the entity has transferred to a customer when that right is conditioned on something other than the passage of time (for example, the entity’s future performance).

An entity’s obligation to transfer goods or services to a customer for which the entity has received consideration (or the amount is due) from the customer.

A party that has contracted with an entity to obtain goods or services that are an output of the entity’s ordinary activities in exchange for consideration.

Increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that result in an increase in equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants.

A promise in a contract with a customer to transfer to the customer either:

(a)            a good or service (or a bundle of goods or services) that is distinct; or

(b)            a series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and that have the same pattern of transfer to the customer.

Income arising in the course of an entity’s ordinary activities.

The price at which an entity would sell a promised good or service separately to a customer.

The amount of consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or services to a customer, excluding amounts collected on behalf of third parties.

A licence that has a term of 12 months or less.

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).

An entity shall apply this Standard for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies this Standard earlier, it shall disclose that fact.

Notwithstanding paragraph C1, this Standard applies to not-for-profit entities for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019. Earlier application is permitted, provided that AASB 1058 Income of Not-for-Profit Entities is also applied to the same period. If a not-for-profit entity applies this Standard earlier, it shall disclose that fact.

Notwithstanding paragraph AusC1.1, not-for-profit entities may elect not to apply this Standard to research grants until annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 July 2019. If a not-for-profit entity applies this Standard to research grants prior to that, it shall also apply AASB 1058 to research grants at the same time.

AASB 16 Leases, issued in February 2016, amended paragraphs 5, 97, B66 and B70. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies AASB 16.

AASB 2016-3 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Clarifications to AASB 15, issued in May 2016, amended paragraphs 26, 27, 29, B1, B34–B38, B52–B53, B58, C2, C5 and C7, deleted paragraph B57 and added paragraphs B34A, B35A, B35B, B37A, B59A, B63A, B63B, C7A and C8A. An entity shall apply those amendments for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies those amendments for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact.

For the purposes of the transition requirements in paragraphs C3–C8A:

(a)            the date of initial application is the start of the reporting period in which an entity first applies this Standard; and

(b)            a completed contract is a contract for which the entity has transferred all of the goods or services identified in accordance with AASB 111 Construction Contracts, AASB 118 Revenue and related Interpretations.

In respect of not-for-profit entities, the reference in paragraph C2(b) to a completed contract also includes contracts for which the entity has recognised all of the revenue in accordance with AASB 1004 Contributions, or revenue in combination with a provision in accordance with AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets.

An entity shall apply this Standard using one of the following two methods:

(a)            retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented in accordance with AASB 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, subject to the expedients in paragraph C5; or

(b)            retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying this Standard recognised at the date of initial application in accordance with paragraphs C7–C8.

Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph 28 of AASB 108, when this Standard is first applied, an entity need only present the quantitative information required by paragraph 28(f) of AASB 108 for the annual reporting period immediately preceding the first annual reporting period for which this Standard is applied (the ‘immediately preceding period’) and only if the entity applies this Standard retrospectively in accordance with paragraph C3(a). An entity may also present this information for the current period or for earlier comparative periods, but is not required to do so.

An entity may use one or more of the following practical expedients when applying this Standard retrospectively in accordance with paragraph C3(a):

(a)            for completed contracts, an entity need not restate contracts that:

(i)             begin and end within the same annual reporting period; or

(ii)            are completed contracts at the beginning of the earliest period presented.

(b)            for completed contracts that have variable consideration, an entity may use the transaction price at the date the contract was completed rather than estimating variable consideration amounts in the comparative reporting periods.

(c)            for contracts that were modified before the beginning of the earliest period presented, an entity need not retrospectively restate the contract for those contract modifications in accordance with paragraphs 20–21. Instead, an entity shall reflect the aggregate effect of all of the modifications that occur before the beginning of the earliest period presented when:

(i)             identifying the satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations;

(ii)            determining the transaction price; and

(iii)           allocating the transaction price to the satisfied and unsatisfied performance obligations.

(d)            for all reporting periods presented before the date of initial application, an entity need not disclose the amount of the transaction price allocated to the remaining performance obligations and an explanation of when the entity expects to recognise that amount as revenue (see paragraph 120).

For any of the practical expedients in paragraph C5 that an entity uses, the entity shall apply that expedient consistently to all contracts within all reporting periods presented. In addition, the entity shall disclose all of the following information:

(a)            the expedients that have been used; and

(b)            to the extent reasonably possible, a qualitative assessment of the estimated effect of applying each of those expedients.

If an entity elects to apply this Standard retrospectively in accordance with paragraph C3(b), the entity shall recognise the cumulative effect of initially applying this Standard as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application. Under this transition method, an entity may elect to apply this Standard retrospectively only to contracts that are not completed contracts at the date of initial application (for example, 1 January 2018 for an entity with a 31 December year-end).

An entity applying this Standard retrospectively in accordance with paragraph C3(b) may also use the practical expedient described in paragraph C5(c), either:

(a)            for all contract modifications that occur before the beginning of the earliest period presented; or

(b)            for all contract modifications that occur before the date of initial application.

If an entity uses this practical expedient, the entity shall apply the expedient consistently to all contracts and disclose the information required by paragraph C6.

For reporting periods that include the date of initial application, an entity shall provide both of the following additional disclosures if this Standard is applied retrospectively in accordance with paragraph C3(b):

(a)            the amount by which each financial statement line item is affected in the current reporting period by the application of this Standard as compared to AASB 111, AASB 118 and related Interpretations that were in effect before the change; and

(b)            an explanation of the reasons for significant changes identified in C8(a).

An entity shall apply AASB 2016-3 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Clarifications to AASB 15 (see paragraph C1B) retrospectively in accordance with AASB 108. In applying the amendments retrospectively, an entity shall apply the amendments as if they had been included in AASB 15 at the date of initial application. Consequently, an entity does not apply the amendments to reporting periods or to contracts to which the requirements of AASB 15 are not applied in accordance with paragraphs C2–C8. For example, if an entity applies AASB 15 in accordance with paragraph C3(b) only to contracts that are not completed contracts at the date of initial application, the entity does not restate the completed contracts at the date of initial application of AASB 15 for the effects of these amendments.

If an entity applies this Standard but does not yet apply AASB 9 Financial Instruments, any reference in this Standard to AASB 9 shall be read as a reference to AASB 139 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.

[Deleted by the AASB]

When applied or operative, this Standard supersedes:

(a)            AASB 111 Construction Contracts;

(b)            AASB 118 Revenue;

(c)            Interpretation 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes;

(d)            Interpretation 15 Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate;

(e)            Interpretation 18 Transfers of Assets from Customers;

(f)             Interpretation 131 Revenue – Barter Transactions Involving Advertising Services; and

(g)            Interpretation 1042 Subscriber Acquisition Costs in the Telecommunications Industry.

Paragraphs 110–129 and B87–B89 do not apply to entities preparing general purpose financial statements that apply AASB 1060 General Purpose Financial Statements – Simplified Disclosures for For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Tier 2 Entities.

AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers incorporates International Financial Reporting Standard IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. Consequently, the text of AASB 15 is generally expressed from the perspective of for-profit entities in the private sector. The AASB has prepared this appendix to explain and illustrate the principles in the Standard from the perspective of not-for-profit entities in the private and public sectors, particularly to address circumstances where a for-profit perspective does not readily translate to a not-for-profit perspective. The appendix does not apply to for-profit entities or affect their application of AASB 15.

AASB 15 provides guidance on the following five elements of a contract with a customer:

(a)            identifying a contract (paragraphs 9–21);

(b)            identifying performance obligations (paragraphs 22–30);

(c)            determining the transaction price (paragraphs 46–72);

(d)            allocating the transaction price to performance obligations (paragraphs 73–90); and

(e)            recognising revenue (paragraphs 31–45).

This appendix should be read in conjunction with the requirements of this Standard.

This appendix provides guidance to assist not-for-profit entities to determine whether particular transactions or other events, or components thereof, are within the scope of this Standard, in particular in relation to identifying a contract and identifying performance obligations. If a transaction is outside the scope of this Standard, the recognition and measurement of income arising from the transaction may instead be specified by another Standard, for example AASB 1058 Income of Not-for-Profit Entities.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations. If a not-for-profit entity’s promise to transfer a good or service is made in an unenforceable arrangement with another party, a contract with a customer does not exist. If a not-for-profit entity’s promise to transfer a good or service in an arrangement with another party fails the ‘sufficiently specific’ criterion discussed in paragraphs F20–F26, a contract with a customer does not exist and the entity shall not treat the promise as a performance obligation in a contract with a customer. Where a contract with a customer does not exist, the not-for-profit entity shall consider whether AASB 1058 is applicable.

In contracts with customers, the ‘customer’ is the party that promises consideration in exchange for goods or services that are an output of the entity’s ordinary activities. However, in contracts with customers in any sector, the customer might direct that goods or services are to be provided to third-party beneficiaries (including individuals or the community at large) on the customer’s behalf. In these contracts:

(a)            the customer remains the party that has contracted with the entity for those goods or services and promises consideration in exchange for those goods or services; and

(b)            the provision of goods or services to third-party beneficiaries is a characteristic of the promised transfer of goods or services to the customer.

For example, a not-for-profit entity in the private sector may receive consideration from a government for the specified purpose of providing first-aid training free of charge to members of the community. The government is the customer because it has contracted the entity to provide the first-aid training services. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the government specifies that those services are to be provided to members of the community.

In relation to the definition of ‘contract’ in Appendix A, the reference to an ‘agreement’ in that definition shall be read by not-for-profit entities as encompassing an arrangement entered into under the direction of another party (for example, when assets are transferred to an entity with a directive that they be deployed to provide specified services).

Paragraph 10 states that contracts can be written, oral or implied by an entity’s customary business practices. The customary business practices of a not-for-profit entity refer to that entity’s customary practice in performing or conducting its activities.

An inherent feature of a contract with a customer is that the entity makes promises in an agreement that creates enforceable rights and obligations. Paragraphs F11–F18 provide guidance for not-for-profit entities on when an agreement creates enforceable rights and obligations.

An agreement is enforceable when a separate party is able to enforce it through legal or equivalent means. It is not necessary for each promise in the agreement to transfer goods or services to be enforceable by legal or equivalent means, as long as some enforceable obligations of the entity arise from the agreement. For an agreement to be enforceable by a separate party through ‘equivalent means’, the presence of a mechanism outside the legal system that establishes the right of a separate party to oblige the entity to act in a particular way or be subject to consequence is required.

An agreement typically is enforceable by another party through legal or equivalent means if the agreement is in writing and includes sufficiently specific requirements of the parties. Oral agreements also may be enforceable. Enforceability needs to be considered in relation to both the particular terms of an agreement and any additional terms agreed by the parties as a result of further discussions or actions. Examples of terms that result in enforceable agreements include the following:

(a)            a refund in cash or kind is required when the agreed specific performance has not occurred;

(b)            the customer, or another party acting on its behalf, has a right to enforce specific performance or claim damages;

(c)            the customer has the right to take a financial interest in assets purchased or constructed by the entity with resources provided under the agreement;

(d)            the parties to the agreement are required to agree on alternative uses of the resources provided under the agreement; and

(e)            an administrative process exists to enforce agreements between sovereign States or between a State and another party.

A sufficiently specific, written agreement can be enforceable even if the particular terms do not include refund or other enforcement provisions, since Australian law generally provides remedies of specific performance or damages for breach of an agreement. Agreements that explicitly state they are not intended to be legally binding may nonetheless become enforceable agreements if the parties act in a manner that is inconsistent with the stated intention. Agreements that lack elements of a contract may nonetheless become legally enforceable if there is conduct by one party that causes the other party to act in reliance on such conduct. The enforceability of agreements does not depend on their form. For example, documents such as Memoranda of Understanding, Heads of Agreement and Letters of Intent can constitute legally enforceable agreements; a formal contract is not required.

In respect of not-for-profit entities, enforcement mechanisms may arise from administrative arrangements or statutory provisions. An example of such an enforcement mechanism is a directive given by a Minister or government department to a public sector entity controlled by the government to which the Minister or government department belongs. The ministerial authority to require a transfer of goods or services would be sufficient for an agreement to be enforceable by a separate party through legal or equivalent means.

In relation to paragraph F11, a consequence for failing to transfer promised goods or services could be either a return of consideration or a penalty for non-performance that is sufficiently severe to compel the entity to fulfil its promise to transfer goods or services. In some circumstances, where rights to specific performance are unavailable or unnecessary, the authority to require compensation may be the key determinant of the enforceability of an agreement involving a promise to transfer goods or services. A capacity to impose a severe penalty for non-performance can exist without a capacity to require a return of transferred assets or assets of equivalent value.

Identification of an agreement as being enforceable by another party through legal or equivalent means does not require a history of enforcement of similar agreements by the customer or even an intention of the customer to enforce its rights. A customer might choose not to enforce its rights against an entity. However, that decision is at the customer’s discretion, and does not affect the enforceability of the customer’s rights. Enforceability depends solely on the customer’s capacity to enforce its rights.

In contrast to the factors in paragraph F11, the following circumstances would not, of themselves, cause an agreement involving a promise to transfer goods or services to be enforceable by another party through legal or equivalent means:

(a)            a transferor has the capacity to withhold future funding to which the entity is not presently entitled; and

(b)            a not-for-profit entity publishes a statement of intent to spend money or consume assets in particular ways. The statement of intent is generally in the nature of a public policy statement, and does not identify parties who could enforce the statement. Such a statement of intent would, of itself, be insufficient to create an enforceable agreement, even if that statement is the subject of budget-to-actual reporting and of other oversight mechanisms to discharge accountability for the raising of funds, expenditure or consumption of assets. This is in contrast to a letter of intent which is typically an agreement between specifically identified parties. See also paragraph Aus26.1 of AASB 137.

In relation to paragraph F17(a), a transferor’s capacity to withhold future funding to which the entity is not presently entitled can be distinguished from circumstances in which a transferor presently holds refund rights, or has the capacity to impose a severe penalty, in the event of the transferee’s non-performance, but might choose to obtain such a refund or impose such a penalty by deducting the amount of the refund or penalty from a future transfer to the entity. For example, a transferor’s capacity to withhold future funding to which the transferee is not presently entitled would differ from circumstances in which a transferor could demand a refund of granted assets in the event of the transferee’s non-performance, regardless of whether it makes any future transfers to the transferee, but chooses for convenience to deduct the refund amount from a future transfer. In this latter case, the transferor could enforce against the entity a promise to provide goods or services.

Paragraph 9(d) specifies that the Standard applies to a contract with a customer only if (among other criteria) the contract has commercial substance (ie the risk, timing or amount of the entity’s future cash flows is expected to change as a result of the contract). A contract may have ‘commercial substance’, for the purposes of paragraph 9(d), even if it is entered into by a not-for-profit entity for purposes that, in everyday language, would be considered ‘non-commercial’ (for example, contracts to provide goods or services to members of the community on a subsidised or cost-recovery basis). This is because contracts to provide goods or services without generating a commercial return may nonetheless cause a change in the risk, timing or amount of the not-for-profit entity’s future cash flows. Accordingly, for the purposes of application of the Standard by not-for-profit entities, ‘commercial substance’ shall be read as a reference to economic substance (ie giving rise to substantive rights and obligations).

Paragraphs 22 and 30 of AASB 15 require that to enable an entity to identify the performance obligations that it should account for separately, each promise to transfer goods or services needs to be distinct – individually, or if not individually, as a bundle combined with other promises. The specificity of the promise to transfer goods or services can be quite different in the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. A necessary condition for identifying a performance obligation of a not-for-profit entity is that the promise is sufficiently specific to be able to determine when the obligation is satisfied. Judgement is necessary to assess whether a promise is sufficiently specific. Such judgement takes into account any conditions specified in the arrangement, whether explicit or implicit, regarding the promised goods or services, including conditions regarding the following aspects:

(a)            the nature or type of the goods or services;

(b)            the cost or value of the goods or services;

(c)            the quantity of the goods or services; and

(d)            the period over which the goods or services must be transferred.

In the not-for-profit context, a service can include an arrangement whereby one entity undertakes specific activities on behalf of another entity. Activities may include service delivery, research or asset management, among others. However, 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. For example, research activities undertaken to develop intellectual property that the entity will license to a customer are not themselves a transfer of goods or services to the customer.

Whether a promise is sufficiently specific so as to qualify as a performance obligation is assessed separately for each promise and will depend on the facts and circumstances. No specific number or combination of the conditions noted in paragraph F20 need to be specified in an agreement for the promise to be sufficiently specific. In addition, there may be other conditions that need to be taken into account in applying the judgement above that may indicate the promise is sufficiently specific.

Conditions specified regarding the promised goods or services may be explicit or implicit in an agreement. Paragraph 24 states that the performance obligations identified in a contract with a customer may not be limited to the goods or services that are explicitly stated in that contract. This is because a contract with a customer 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. A not-for-profit entity may make a statement of intent to spend a transfer in a particular way. As noted in paragraph F17(b), a statement of intent alone is generally not enough to create a performance obligation. Some element of the contract will need to be enforceable and past practice would need to support the customer expectation.

In relation to paragraph F20(d), a condition that a not-for-profit entity must transfer unspecified goods or services within a particular period does not, of itself, meet the ‘sufficiently specific’ criterion. For example, a not-for-profit entity may provide a number of services under its charter such as counselling and housing to disadvantaged youth. Where it receives a transfer to be used for an unspecified purpose over a particular time period, such a promise would not meet the ‘sufficiently specific’ criterion.

Some not-for-profit entities have a single purpose charter, such as to provide counselling services. However, it is unlikely that an entity’s charter or stated objectives would be specific enough to require the recognition of contract liabilities under a contract that provided the entity with a grant for a specified period of time but did not also adequately identify the goods or services to be provided to other parties. Where entities receive a transfer to be used over a particular time period for specified services, such a transfer could meet the ‘sufficiently specific’ criterion. Specifying the services to be provided under the arrangement and the stipulation to use the transferred funds over a particular time period enables a determination of when the services have been provided. However, if the transfer does not specify the period over which the entity must use the funds or the services to be provided (such as the number of counselling sessions), the entity would not meet the ‘sufficiently specific’ criterion because it would be unable to determine when it meets the performance obligations.

An agreement may include a condition that the entity undertakes an acquittal process to demonstrate progress toward transferring goods or services. For example, the terms of an agreement may require the entity to report on progress toward specified outputs or outcomes in an acquittal process. Such an acquittal process may provide evidence of a promise to transfer goods or services that is sufficiently specific, depending on the requirements of the acquittal process and other facts and circumstances. An acquittal process may also enable a determination of progress toward satisfaction of the performance obligation.

Where a contract provides a transfer of a financial asset for an entity to acquire or construct a non-financial asset (eg a building or an intangible asset) that is to be controlled by the entity, the contract does not establish rights and obligations for the transfer of the non-financial asset to the transferor or other parties. Accordingly, the contract is not a contract with a customer, and hence is not accounted for in accordance with AASB 15. Such contracts are instead accounted for in accordance with paragraphs 15–17 of AASB 1058. In this case, the transferor has made an in-substance transfer of the non-financial asset to the entity. The entity would retain control of the non-financial asset and use it in its operations, such as to produce goods or services for transfer to other parties under other contracts. A contract to transfer a financial asset for an entity to acquire or construct a non-financial asset that is to be controlled by the entity may be part of a contract that includes other conditions that give rise to performance obligations that require the entity to transfer goods or services to other entities. Those performance obligations are accounted for under AASB 15.

A customer may enter into a contract with a not-for-profit entity with a dual purpose of obtaining goods or services and to help the not-for-profit entity achieve its objectives. An entity shall allocate the transaction price to each performance obligation so that the performance obligation allocation depicts the amount of consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services to the customer. This is based on the rebuttable presumption that the transaction price is treated as wholly related to the transfer of promised goods or services.

The presumption is rebutted where the transaction price is partially refundable in the event the entity does not deliver the promised goods or services.

Where the presumption is rebutted, the entity shall disaggregate the transaction price and account for the component that relates to the transfer of promised goods or services in accordance with this Standard. The remainder of the transaction price shall be accounted for in accordance with AASB 1058. Whether the element not related to the performance obligation is material, and therefore needs to be accounted for separately, shall be assessed in relation to the individual contract, without reassessment at an aggregate or portfolio level.

To disaggregate the component that relates to the promised goods or services, the following may be indicative of an element that is not related to the promised goods or services (and more likely to be for the purpose of enabling the not-for-profit entity to further its objectives):

(a)            a non-refundable component of the transaction price; and

(b)            where the entity has the status of a deductible gift recipient – the donor can claim part of the transaction price as a tax deduction for a donation.

For example, a not-for-profit heritage foundation sells on-line subscriptions that provide access for a year to particular heritage sites (a promised service to each customer) and invites subscribers to, in addition, donate a non-refundable nominated amount to generally assist the foundation in pursuing its mission. Such a donation, which is voluntary for a subscriber, is separately identifiable from the price of the annual subscription. However, if the annual subscription fee and the donation were both refundable if access were not provided for the entire subscription period, the presumption in paragraph F28 could not be rebutted as the transaction price is refundable in full. In that case, the donation amount would not be accounted for separately but would be included in the transaction price that is allocated to the performance obligation to provide membership access. Consequently, the donation amount would be recognised as revenue when (or as) performance obligations under the arrangement are satisfied in accordance with AASB 15. Similarly, if both elements were equally proportionately refundable to acknowledge access already provided during the year, or if neither element were refundable, then no separation is required as the presumption is not rebutted.

The diagram below summarises the accounting requirements under AASB 15 applicable to not-for-profit public sector licensors when determining how to account for revenue from licences. The diagram should be read in conjunction with the guidance set out in paragraphs G2–G27, and as referenced in the diagram.

AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers incorporates International Financial Reporting Standard IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. Consequently, the text of AASB 15 is generally expressed from the perspective of for-profit entities in the private sector. AASB 15 provides explicit Application Guidance for intellectual property (IP) licences. It does not provide explicit guidance for non-IP licences. The AASB has prepared this Appendix to explain and illustrate the principles in the Standard from the perspective of not-for-profit public sector licensors with respect to non-IP licences. The Appendix does not apply to for-profit entities or not-for-profit private sector entities, or affect their application of AASB 15.

In determining whether a transaction is a licence subject to this Standard, as distinct from a tax subject to AASB 1058 Income of Not-for-Profit Entities^[1], the following features are pertinent. These features are not an exhaustive list and not all features need to be present for an arrangement to be a licence:

A not-for-profit public sector entity may enter into an arrangement with a dual purpose of issuing a licence and imposing a tax. Consistent with paragraph F28 of AASB 15, the rebuttable presumption is for the not-for-profit public sector licensor to allocate the transaction price wholly to the promise to issue a licence.

The presumption is rebutted if one of the following criteria are satisfied:

(a)            the transaction price is partially refundable in the event the entity does not issue the licence; or

(b)            a similar activity effected through a different transaction or organisational structure is subject to a tax, providing evidence of the composite nature of the arrangement or there is other evidence supporting that there is a tax not specific to the licencing arrangement.

Where the presumption is rebutted the entity shall disaggregate the transaction price and account for the component that relates to the licence in accordance with AASB 15. The remainder of the transaction price that is determined to be a tax shall be accounted for in accordance with AASB 1058. Whether the element not related to the licence is material, and therefore needs to be accounted for separately, shall be assessed in relation to the individual arrangement, without reassessment at an aggregate or portfolio level.

For example, a casino licence permits gaming activities to be conducted. Similar gaming activities are also conducted online by third parties who are not subject to a casino or any other kind of licence and are taxed at a rate of 10 per cent of proceeds received. This provides evidence that the casino arrangement contains both a licence and a tax and that the presumption in G4 should be rebutted. The tax rate charged to the third party provides evidence of the amount that should be disaggregated as the tax component.

The scope of AASB 15 is underpinned by the definition of a contract in Appendix A, which is an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations. When determining whether a licence is a contract with a customer a not-for-profit public sector entity shall consider paragraphs F5–F19 of AASB 15, also having regard to paragraphs G9 and G10.

Enforceable rights and obligations between parties may arise from statutory requirements even though no contractual relationship exists. For example, a not-for-profit public sector entity may enter into an agreement with another entity without satisfying the formative elements required to establish a contract (such as the reciprocal intention to create legal relations). Similarly, where an involuntary payment is made to obtain a licence, the arrangement may not be considered a contract under Australian law, despite being economically similar to a contractual relationship.

Determining whether a licence issued by a not-for-profit public sector licensor is created by contract or by statute alone may require significant analysis as to whether there is sufficient ‘voluntariness’ and ‘reciprocity’ to evidence an intention to create a contract, particularly where a voluntary decision to undertake an activity results in an involuntary fee. However, the requirements of AASB 15 focus on whether enforceable rights and obligations are present, and as noted in paragraph F13, the enforceability of agreements does not depend on their form. Accordingly, a licence issued by a not-for-profit public sector licensor, with enforceable rights and obligations, would be within the scope of AASB 15 (subject to the other requirements of the Standard) regardless of whether it is considered under Australian law to have been created by contract or by statute.

Paragraphs B52–B63B describe the application of AASB 15 to licences of intellectual property (IP). Licences issued by not-for-profit public sector licensors extend beyond IP licences to include licensing arrangements in which the licence does not relate to IP (ie non‑IP licences).

Not-for-profit public sector licensors shall apply the Application Guidance in paragraphs B52–B63B to account for the revenue from licences of IP, unless the licensor decides to apply the recognition exemptions set out in paragraphs Aus8.1–Aus8.5.

AASB 15 does not define IP, and consequently judgement is required in determining whether a licence is a licence of IP or not. Paragraph B52 notes that IP may include, but is not limited to, 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.

IP may also arise from research activities. Example 3 in paragraph IE3 provides an example of accounting for such a licence.

Where a not-for-profit public sector licensor determines that a licence is a non-IP licence, the licensor shall consider whether the licence is for:

(a)            rights over the licensor’s identified asset(s), in which case the arrangement might be a lease (or contain a lease), and fall within the scope of AASB 16;

(b)            rights over the licensor’s non-identified asset(s), in which case the licence might:

(i)             not be distinct from other promised goods or services in the arrangement, and shall therefore be combined with the other goods or services and accounted for as a bundle of goods or services (see paragraphs G20 and G21); or

(ii)            be distinct from other promised goods or services, and shall therefore be accounted for as a separate performance obligation in accordance with the principles of AASB 15 (see paragraphs G16–G21 for guidance on applying certain aspects of the principles). The Application Guidance for licences of IP in paragraphs B52–B63B shall not be applied to this type of licence; or

(c)            the right to perform an activity, which would not involve an asset or assets of the licensor, and if distinct from other goods or services, shall be accounted for as a separate performance obligation in accordance with the principles of AASB 15 (see paragraphs G16–G21 for guidance on applying certain aspects of the principles). The Application Guidance for licences of IP in paragraphs B52–B63B shall not be applied to this type of licence.

Where a licensor issues a non-IP licence that transfers to the licensee either rights over the licensor’s non-identified assets or a right to the licensee to perform an activity (that does not involve an asset or assets of the licensor, for example the right to operate a casino), the licensor shall assess goods or services promised in the arrangement and shall identify each distinct performance obligation promised to the licensee in accordance with paragraphs 22–30 of AASB 15.

Appendix A defines a customer for the purpose of this Standard. In the context of non-IP licences, the customer is the licensee who contracted with the licensor to be issued the rights associated with the licence.

The good or service being transferred in a non-IP licence by a licensor would most commonly be either issuing rights over the licensor’s non-identified assets or issuing rights to the licensee to perform an activity (ie issuing the licence itself is the sole good or service). However, an entity shall also assess the arrangement to identify any other goods or services promised to the licensee.

In accordance with paragraph 25, performance obligations do not include activities that a licensor must undertake to fulfil a contract unless those activities transfer a good or service additional to the licence issued to the licensee. For example:

(a)            a promise to the licensee that the right is restricted to the licensee is not a performance obligation. A promise in the licence terms that the licensor will not issue a similar right to another party (ie exclusivity to the licensee) is considered an attribute of the arrangement and does not transfer a good or service additional to the licence. Although the licensor maintaining exclusivity maintains the value of the licence, and has a greater value than a non-exclusive licence, it does not transfer an additional good or service. The licensor refraining from issuing another licence to a new licensee only confirms the licence meets the attributes promised at inception of the licence. Similarly, if a licensor carries out activities to ensure that no other party engages in the activities that the licensee has an exclusive right to, this does not provide a service to the licensee, but instead is an activity that confirms the licence meets the attributes promised at inception of the licence;

(b)            activities that a licensor is required to undertake in the context of a non-IP licence to benefit the general public or to confirm the terms of the licence are being met (for example ‘policing’ activities to ensure licensee is not carrying out illegal activities or customers of the licensee are of a legally allowable age) are not performance obligations. Such activities do not transfer additional goods or services to the licensee (even though the licensee could benefit from those activities); and

(c)            activities that a licensor performs to check that a licensee continues to meet the eligibility requirements of the arrangement are not performance obligations. The licensee controls whether they meet the eligibility requirements of the arrangement. Activities performed by the licensor to uphold the integrity of the licence merely confirm that the arrangement is not breached, and do not transfer goods or services to the licensee.

If the promise to issue a non-IP licence is not distinct from other promised goods or services in the arrangement in accordance with paragraphs 26–30, the licensor shall combine the promise to issue that licence with the other goods or services and account for the bundle of goods or services together as a single performance obligation.

When determining whether the non-IP licence is distinct from other goods or services (in accordance with paragraphs 26–30), a licensor shall consider the benefits or desired outputs for which the licence was issued. For example, in the case of a commercial fishing licence where a quota of fish is specified in the agreement, the purpose of obtaining the licence is to obtain goods (ie the fish), and the licence is not separately identifiable from the fish, given:

(a)            the licensor is using the licence as an input to deliver the fish to the licensee, which is the output to the licensee; and

(b)            the licence and the promise to deliver the fish are highly interrelated – the licensor would not be able to fulfil its promise of delivering the fish independently of issuing the licence without undermining its policies and customary business practices (ie the fish can only be delivered when a fishing licence has been issued).

In these circumstances, the licence is not separately identifiable from other promises in the arrangement, in accordance with paragraphs 29(a) and (c) of AASB 15.

This Standard permits a not-for-profit public sector licensor to apply paragraph Aus8.3 in accounting for low-value licences. A licensor shall assess the transaction price of a licence on an absolute basis when the licence is issued.

Notwithstanding paragraph G22, the option allowed in paragraph Aus8.1 is not available to licences including variable consideration.

Low-value licences qualify for the accounting treatment in paragraph Aus8.3 regardless of whether those licences are material in aggregate to the licensor. The assessment is not affected by the size, nature or circumstances of the licensor. Accordingly, different licensors would be expected to reach the same conclusions about whether a particular licence has a low-value transaction price.

A licence does not qualify as a low-value licence if the nature of the licence is such that the licence is not typically of low value. For example, casino licences would not qualify as low-value licences because casino licences would typically not be of low value.

Examples of low-value licences include driver licences, marriage licences and working with children permits.

The Standard permits a not-for-profit public sector licensor to apply paragraph Aus8.3 in accounting for short-term licences. In determining the licence term, the licensor shall disregard any option to extend the licence, regardless of whether the licensee is reasonably certain to exercise that option.

The following examples portray hypothetical situations. They are intended to illustrate how a not-for-profit entity might apply some of the requirements of AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers to particular types of transactions, on the basis of the limited facts presented. Although some aspects of the examples might be present in actual fact patterns, all relevant facts and circumstances of a particular fact pattern would need to be evaluated when applying AASB 15.

Examples 1 and 2 illustrate the requirements of AASB 15 for identifying whether a transaction or agreement involves a performance obligation in a contract with a customer.

For a performance obligation to exist, there must be an enforceable agreement with sufficiently specific promises to transfer goods or services to or on behalf of the other party to enable assessment of whether the performance has occurred, ie whether the obligation has been satisfied. Further examples are provided in AASB 1058 of transactions or agreements where the performance obligation is not sufficiently specific.

Examples 6 and 7 illustrate the requirements of AASB 15 for accounting for the transaction or agreement, including assessing whether the transaction includes an element not related to performance obligations (eg a donation).

Example 7A illustrates application of the requirements of AASB 15 to transactions where a not-for-profit entity charges upfront fees to customers or members as part of the goods and services offered. The following are examples of upfront fees:

(a)                joining fees at clubs and membership bodies;

(b)                enrolment fees at schools; and

(c)                other establishment or set-up fees where the fee is paid at or near contract inception and the customer can renew the contract each year without paying an additional fee.

Where the goods or services to which the upfront fee relates are in the scope of AASB 15, the recognition of the upfront fee as revenue depends on whether the payment of the fee relates to a transfer of distinct goods or services to the customer that meets the definition of a performance obligation. In many cases, even though a non-refundable upfront fee relates to the activity that an entity is required to undertake to fulfil the contract, that activity may be an administrative task that does not necessarily result in the transfer of a promised good or service to the customer.

The following examples portray hypothetical situations. They are intended to illustrate how a not-for-profit public sector licensor might apply some of the requirements of AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers to non-IP licences that they issue, on the basis of the limited facts presented. Although some aspects of the examples might be present in actual fact patterns, all relevant facts and circumstances of a particular fact pattern would need to be evaluated when applying AASB 15. The evaluations in each example are not intended to represent the only manner in which AASB 15 could be applied.

Example 8 illustrates a not-for-profit public sector licensor recognising revenue when (or as) the licensor satisfies the performance obligation of transferring the promised licence to the licensee. A licence is transferred when (or as) the licensee obtains control of that licence. To determine when a licensee obtains control of the promised rights associated with the licence and the licensor satisfies its performance obligation, the licensor shall consider the requirements for control in AASB 15 paragraphs 31–34 regarding control by the licensee (the customer).

The licensor shall determine at the inception of each licensing arrangement whether the performance obligation from issuing the licence is recognised over time (in accordance with AASB 15 paragraphs 35–37) or at a point in time (in accordance with AASB 15 paragraph 38).

This Standard supersedes the following Standards:

(a)            IAS 11 Construction Contracts;

(b)            IAS 18 Revenue;

(c)            IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes;

(d)            IFRIC 15 Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate;

(e)            IFRIC 18 Transfers of Assets from Customers; and

(f)            SIC-31 Revenue—Barter Transactions Involving Advertising Services.