FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) failed to reach a consensus for new lease accounting guidance Wednesday but vowed to continue working together in pursuit of consistency.
During two days of meetings at FASB’s headquarters in Norwalk, Conn., the boards failed to reach common answers on key areas of lessee and lessor accounting. In particular, the IASB favored a single approach for lessees for recognition of all leases, while FASB voted for a dual-recognition approach for lessees, depending on the type of lease.
The boards issued a joint statement saying they had agreed on areas such as lease term and short-term leases. The boards also pledged to continue working together on the standard.
“While differences remain, most notably in their preferred approaches to expense recognition, the boards are committed to working together to minimize these differences and to creating greater transparency around lease transactions for the benefit of investors worldwide,” the boards said.
The boards are attempting to create a converged standard that would eliminate a hidden liability for lessees by bringing leases onto corporate balance sheets. But they have struggled to agree on how to do it.
No consensus for lessee accounting
IASB members this week expressed a preference for lessees to account for all leases as the purchase of a right-of-use asset on a financed basis. In this “Type A” approach, a lessee would recognize amortization of the right-of-use asset separately from the interest on the lease liability for all leases.
FASB members preferred a dual-recognition approach for lessees that would use a Type A interest-and-amortization method for leases classified as capital leases under existing guidance, and a “Type B” single, straight-line lease expense for operating leases.
But there may still be a chance for convergence on this issue. FASB Chairman Russell Golden asked the FASB staff to work with the IASB staff to conduct research that would help the boards understand the effects of a possible exception that would permit preparers not to apply the proposed standard’s requirements to leases of small, nonspecialized assets.
The IASB voted for the so-called small-ticket exception, while FASB voted against it. Golden asked for the staff research in hopes that a better understanding of the exception could lead to convergence, which could cause the boards to agree on a preferred method of expense recognition.
FASB member Tom Linsmeier said he would be more inclined to consider the Type A-only approach for lessees if the boards abandon the small-ticket exception.
Sticking point for lessor accounting
On lessor accounting, meanwhile, the boards agreed to keep standards similar to current guidance but couldn’t agree on one important detail. They agreed that lessors should classify their leases as Type A or Type B based on whether the lease is effectively a financing or a sale rather than an operating lease.
But the IASB preferred to make that determination by assessing whether the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the underlying asset.
FASB preferred to make the leases guidance consistent with the requirements for a sale in the soon-to-be-issued revenue recognition standard. FASB’s approach would preclude recognition of selling profit and revenue at lease commencement for any Type A lease that does not transfer control of the underlying asset to the lessee.
The core principle of the new revenue recognition standard will be that revenue should be recognized to depict a transfer of promised goods or services to the customer.
Despite the disagreement on lessor accounting, some IASB members said they could accept the FASB approach, with IASB Chairman Hans Hoogervorst holding a “swing vote” that Golden suggested could move the lessor accounting decision to a converged answer in the future.
Before the boards parted, Golden thanked IASB members and said the boards ought to work together on the definition of a lease, disclosures, and other aspects of the leases proposal.
“We will continue to work together to improve accounting in this area, to continue to meet our objective,” Golden said, “and I hope to continue to minimize any differences.”
The boards have been working since 2006 to come to agreement on a leases standard. Their second exposure draft on the topic, issued in 2013, caused many preparers and some investors to question the benefits of the information—and the costs—the proposal would have generated.
— Ken Tysiac ( email@example.com ) is a JofA senior editor.