UK: Accounting In The Technology Industry - Re-Computing Revenue

The new Exposure Draft on revenue recognition, released on 24 June 2010, is another significant draft standard developed jointly by the two main standardsetters, the IASB and FASB, as part of their path towards convergence. What makes this standard even more significant is that it is in one of the areas that the two GAAPs differ most in their approach: IFRS as it stands has little guidance on revenue recognition compared to US GAAP which has a series of detailed rules dealing with many situations of application.

CFOs of technology companies are all aware that an accounting conclusion on revenue recognition can have a material impact on the financial results of any particular financial year and hence alter both an investor's valuation of the business and KPIs used for management incentive arrangements. Responses from technology companies to the preceding Discussion Paper issued in 2009 were generally positive and most welcomed the single revenue recognition model and convergence between frameworks, though some responses highlighted areas of complexity for further review by the two accounting boards. Some of these thoughts from leading technology companies have been included within this document to show that the impacts of a new revenue recognition standard could be far-reaching and warrant timely consideration by all companies in the sector. The resulting Exposure Draft develops the key principles proposed by the standardsetters into a comprehensive framework that can be applied to a range of industries.

Exposure Draft overview

The new Exposure Draft proposes to replace both IAS 11 Construction Contracts and IAS 18 Revenue in IFRS, and most of the numerous and extensive US GAAP revenue guidance, including most notably EITF 08-01 (which replaced EITF 00-21), SOP 81-1 and SOP 97-2 under the pre-codification references (currently codified in ASC 605). Certain areas of revenue recognition such as leasing are out of scope of this Exposure Draft.

The Exposure Draft includes specific guidance on a number of key areas. This includes:

  • the combining of two or more contracts into a single contract if the pricing is interdependent;
  • the splitting of a single contract into multiple contracts if elements within the contract are priced independently;
  • accounting for a good or service as a separate performance obligation if it is distinct, meaning that the good or service is either sold separately in the customer's market or could be sold separately because it would be useful in itself or in conjunction with another product that is available separately;
  • determining the transaction price through considering the time value of money, variable consideration and the credit risk of the customer; and
  • allocation of transaction price to the separate performance obligations in proportion to the standalone selling price of each element (including, where this is not available, developing an estimate of the stand-alone selling price based on a reasonable approach).

"We agree that it would be desirable to have a single revenue recognition model that is applied to all revenue generating transactions. However, we believe that a single revenue recognition model should only replace the current mixed model if it is superior to the current mixed model ... [W]e do not believe that the model proposed in the [Discussion Paper] meets this superiority requirement."

Group of major software companies – response to the preceding Discussion Paper

The Exposure Draft proposes a five stage approach to revenue recognition transactions, which can be summarised as follows:

Within step 5 there is a focus on the concept of control that has been further developed for the Exposure Draft. A performance obligation is deemed to be satisfied when control of the good or service is obtained by the customer, which may in some cases be different from the equivalent existing IAS 18 revenue recognition requirement that the significant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred. Control can pass either at a point in time (akin to goods under IAS 18) or continuously (akin to services under IAS 18). However the new concept will potentially require increased application of judgement to determine when control has been obtained, and some transactions currently accounted for as services may be accounted for differently under the Exposure Draft. The Exposure Draft gives some guidance on indicators that may suggest when control has passed, but there are some possible scenarios that may require further clarification.

"We do not believe that a Standard should be drafted so as to focus directly on the 'transfer of control'. The concept is too ambiguous and too far removed from the practicalities of accounting for revenue recognition, and we believe that it would lead to very significant lack of comparability between entities as a result of different interpretation and application.

Deloitte response to the preceding

Discussion Paper, June 19 2009 The Exposure Draft should be assessed by technology companies now, ahead of the final standard, in order to determine the potential impact of these changes on their own businesses.

Some of the key areas are as follows:

  • Percentage of completion
  • Bundled arrangements
  • Intellectual Property
  • Variable consideration
  • Contract modifications
  • Disclosures

Each of these is discussed below, highlighting some of the more significant changes brought about by the Exposure Draft.

Percentage of completion

The new Exposure Draft focuses on the concept of "control" in determining when revenue should be recognised. For software providers who develop customised software for their customers, the structuring of contracts with customers will make it clear if title passes at any stage of the development. In a significant number of situations, the software developer retains legal title to the IP and instead licences the software to the customer or in a number of other instances, legal title to the product only passes at the end of the development phase. The Exposure Draft gives several other factors for consideration in assessing when control has passed, such as a customer-specific design or function, the ability to specify changes to functionality during the construction process and the customer's requirement to pay for work completed to date, however this is an area where judgement will be required on a case-by-case basis.


Seller X enters into a contract to develop a software module for Customer A. Customer A has determined the functionality that the software needs and retains the right to modify the functionality during the contract but Seller X retains title to the final product. In the event of a contract termination, Customer A would recompense Seller X for the costs incurred todate. Seller X agrees to install the software for Customer A however because it is a module of a standard software system, the installation could be performed by a third party.

In this situation, although legal title remains with Seller X, this right may be judged to be a protective right as outlined under the Exposure Draft. While it is clear that Customer A would gain control at the end of the contract, Seller X needs to consider whether Customer A has control of the development work throughout the development phase.

In this case, the customer has neither possession of nor physical title to the software as it is being developed. However, the customer-specific functionality of the software, the customer's ability to significantly alter the functionality during the development process and the contractual obligation of Customer A to recompense Seller X for work completed to date, appear to be indicators that would support Customer A having control of the software as it is developed. Accordingly, there are mixed indicators and the ED requires judgement over whether the customer has control – i.e. the present right to use the asset for its remaining life and to obtain substantially all the potential cash flows from it.


In a different contract to the above, Seller X has a separate performance obligation, which is the supply and installation of a piece of standard software on existing hardware already owned by Customer A. This arrangement requires Seller X to use its knowledge of the developed software in order to install it successfully and so installation could not be performed by another party. Customer A retains the right to terminate the installation at any point in time and recompense Seller X for the costs incurred to-date.

In this example, Seller X again looks to see when the customer has control. Benefit from the software is clearly with the customer by the time the installation is complete, however it would appear probable that in this example the Seller would find it harder to demonstrate that Customer A has control during the installation process. Instead it could be possible to conclude that that Seller X retains control until the installation process is complete, mainly as a result of the proprietary knowledge relating to the installation process, which effectively prevents another supplier coming in mid-way and completing the installation work where Supplier X left off, should Customer A request it. Therefore the cancellation right may appear to lack substance and appear more to be a protective right granted to Customer A.

It would therefore appear possible that in this situation Seller X would conclude under the new Exposure Draft that no revenue should be recognised until the installation is complete.

"In addition to long-term construction contracts, we have identified the following situations where there is satisfaction of performance obligations without clear transfer of control ... :

a) Right to use or licensing arrangements ... c) Software-as-a-service (SaaS)"

Global hardware manufacturer and systems provider – response to the preceding Discussion Paper

Allocation of transaction pricing

The new Exposure Draft provides significantly more guidance than the current IFRSs as it considers several key areas such as bundled arrangements and related contracts. In assessing the revenue recognition of bundled arrangements, the IASB has proposed a rule that prescribes how companies should allocate the total contract price between the various elements of a bundled arrangement. It appears that this allocation will be required by the Exposure Draft even where it may appear that it does not reflect the economic substance of how the elements within the arrangement have been priced.

Good news for US software companies

For technology companies that report transactions under US GAAP, other than those that fall within the scope of SOP 97-2 (ASC 605-985), EITF 08-01 has eased the requirement to demonstrate fair value for all elements of arrangements that would have previously been accounted for under EITF 00-21. However software companies are currently still required to demonstrate fair value through Vendor Specific Objective Evidence ("VSOE") for transactions that remain under SOP 97-2.

The new Exposure Draft will therefore be a welcome change when implemented by FASB as it is proposed that it will replace all existing revenue recognition guidance, including SOP 97-2.

"[Company name] is concerned that the proposed model could result in an onerous exercise to identify and account for numerous performance obligations. As indicated in the [Discussion Paper], even a simple contract can comprise many performance obligations."

Global software company – response to the preceding

Discussion Paper


Seller Y enters into a contact with Customer B for a software licence and for 12 months of maintenance services. The stand-alone price of the software licence is £100,000, though significant discounts are sometimes granted, and the stand-alone price of the maintenance services is £120,000 per annum. The contractual prices agreed by Seller Y with Customer B are £20,000 for the software licence and £90,000 per annum for the maintenance, giving a total transaction price of £110,000.

Assuming that the Seller can demonstrate the licence and the maintenance services are separate performance obligations as defined under the Exposure Draft, Seller Y must then consider how to allocate the transaction price to the separate obligations.

Under the Exposure Draft, the transaction price for the contract should be allocated to the separate performance obligations in proportion to the stand-alone selling price at contract inception.

Transaction price = £110,000

Total of stand-alone prices = £220,000

Allocation factor = 0.5

Consideration allocated to licence: £100,000*0.5 = £50,000

Consideration allocated to maintenance: £120,000*0.5 = £60,000

The answer that is proposed under the Exposure Draft might be regarded as favourable for Seller Y's revenue recognition profile compared with how many companies would currently account for this transaction, with £30,000 of maintenance consideration being brought forward and recognised as part of the licence fee. But in some cases this allocation may not reflect the substance of the arrangement, which is often that a high-margin licence fee is more heavily discounted than low-margin maintenance services. In some cases, this allocation of revenue to maintenance services may even result in them being provided at a loss, with the result that an onerous contract provision would be required at contract inception.

Intellectual Property

Nearly all technology companies have some Intellectual Property ("IP") and the Application Guidance in Appendix B of the new Exposure Draft goes some way in outlining how revenue should be recognised from the licensing of this IP to third parties.

The Exposure Draft considers the three main types of IP contracts, which are summarised in the table below along with their respective revenue recognition conclusions.

The final scenario could arise when sellers and customers enter into an arrangement for the entire duration of an IP contract but structure the contract so that a portion of the contract life is in the form of a customer renewal option at the end of an initial contract period. While the seller and customer may for all intents and purposes intend to enact the renewal, the form of the contract may lead to the conclusion that revenue is recognised over the duration of the contract, as opposed to recognising revenue up-front.

In a recent webcast held by the IASB and FASB to discuss the impact of the Exposure Draft on technology companies, one of the questions from attendees was how the Boards had arrived at the conclusion to recognise revenue over the duration of the contract for exclusive licence arrangements that are not considered to be out-right sales (the third option in the table above).

The response was that the Boards applied a similar logic to this transaction as had been applied in the Leases Exposure Draft: namely that there was a right to use the asset over time and no outright sale hence revenue should be recognised over the duration of the contract.

Variable consideration

One area the Exposure Draft addresses in a new way compared to the approaches allowed previously under IFRS and US GAAP is that of variable consideration. If sellers cannot yet predict reliably the probabilities associated with different outcomes for variable consideration, the revenue recognised is based only on any fixed element of consideration. However, sellers who are able to predict contract outcomes reliably are required to allocate probabilities to the various outcomes and to determine a weighted average consideration at contract inception. This assessment is then regularly updated, which will lead to adjustments throughout the contract life as the outcomes and associated probabilities are reconsidered at each reporting period.

US GAAP guidance on contingent fees is generally obtained from the SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 13.A.14."Contingent Rental Income." The staff guidance is that contingent revenue which does not exist at the start of the arrangement becomes "accruable" when the change in factors on which the contingent payments are based actually occur, regardless of historical trends that may support the recognition of additional amounts at the start of the arrangement. The new Exposure Draft would therefore allow companies having transactions with variable consideration and reliable outcomes to recognise a proportion of these amounts up-front, which would represent a marked change from current guidance.

Contract modifications

For technology companies that enter into long-term contracts, contract modifications are a normal part of business activity. The new Exposure Draft outlines a method of accounting for these but the accounting that results can be very significantly different depending on relatively small changes in the revised pricing that is adopted.

As the below example shows, a contract modification can result in a one-off change in revenue recognised at the point of the amendment. Whilst our example considers only the simple case of going from a market value transaction price to a non-market value transaction price, this may get more complex when the arrangement has multiple elements.


The new Exposure Draft proposes a raft of new disclosures to help the users of financial statements. However, some have expressed concern that the additional compliance burden placed upon preparers may be onerous.

The Exposure Draft proposes extensive disclosures in the following key areas:

  • analysis of revenue disaggregated to an appropriate level;
  • reconciliation of opening and closing contract assets and liabilities showing revenue recognised, changes in transaction pricing, consideration received (both cash and non-cash), and contracts acquired as part of a business combination;
  • detail of future performance obligations, including the typical periods and manner of settlement;
  • aggregated analysis of amounts receivable in future years from long-term contracts; and
  • analysis of onerous performance obligations along with supporting explanations.

Final thoughts

The Exposure Draft proposed by the IASB will greatly increase the amount of detailed revenue guidance included within IFRS as it addresses a number of areas where previously there was little guidance. Whether US regulators and US listed companies will welcome the extent to which companies will be required to exercise judgement remains to be seen.

What is certain is that this Exposure Draft helps with convergence of US GAAP and IFRS in one of the most diverse, and sometimes most complex, areas of accounting.

As highlighted above there are certain aspects of the Exposure Draft that could have serious implications for technology companies. We hope that the IASB refines and improves the final standard in these areas but recommend that technology companies act now in considering the implications of accounting for revenue under the new regime.

Those who wish to communicate their thoughts directly to the IASB should visit their website at – the closing date for comments is 22 October 2010.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions