Printer Friendly

Accounting for leases under the forthcoming exposure draft: will businesses welcome the guidance?

The old accounting rules for leasing will soon be resigned to history. Gone will be the "bright line" tests of the rules-based accounting standard that called for meeting one or more of four criteria to distinguish whether a leased asset should or should not appear on the balance sheet. The new accounting rules will come a long way in improving one of U.S. GAAP's most often cited criticisms--that it includes too many arbitrary "bright lines" in the guidance. The old rules will be replaced by a model where all long-term leases appear on the balance sheet, while businesses can elect whether short-term leases will appear on the balance sheet.

The new rules will improve the transparency of financial statements by eliminating "off-balance sheet" accounting for leases and the unfaithful representation of the rights and obligations of lessees arising from long-term operating leases. Critics, however, might wonder if the old bright lines will simply be replaced by fuzzy and illogical ones.

New Lease Accounting

Under the new lease accounting proposed by the joint IASB/FASB committee, a lease will exist when a contract--

* requires the use of a specified asset and

* conveys the right to control the asset for a period of time.

Control will be based on the ability to direct and obtain benefit from the asset's use. A lessee buys the right to control the leased asset; in other words, the lessee buys an intangible asset designated as a "right-of-use" (ROU) asset. (Even though the ROU asset appears to be intangible, the boards have not called it such, because that would create regulatory capital issues for banks.) The lessee will not own the underlying asset, but will be entitled to its use. (Guidance will not be provided for distinguishing a lease of an underlying asset from a purchase or a sale of an underlying asset. Such guidance will likely arise in connection with the newly proposed revenue recognition standard.) Both boards affirmed the application of an ROU model for all long-term lease arrangements of specified assets. A specified asset can be explicitly or implicitly identifiable, whether as a separate asset or as a physically distinct portion of a larger asset over which the lessee has exclusive use. These definitions of specified asset and control are slightly less broad than current GAAP, so fewer contracts will be considered leases (notably, the dividing line between leases and service contracts will change). The ROU model will not, however, apply to the following:

* Short-term leases of 12 months or less, except by election

* Leases of intangibles

* Leases for the right to explore and use nonregenerative resources

* Leases of timber and other biological assets

* Leases of service concession arrangements.

Short-Term Leases and Lease Renewals

Capitalized lease accounting is meant to apply to long-term lease arrangements, not to short-term ones--that is, arrangements that, at the date of commencement, have a maximum possible lease term (including any options to renew or extend) of 12 months or less. Under the new model, lessees can either account for payments under these short-term arrangements as an operating expense or as capitalized amounts. Lessors may elect, as an accounting policy for a class of assets, to account for all short-term leases similar to today's operating leases. Renewals with terms of 12 months or less are considered short-term leases (eligible for off-balance sheet operating lease accounting) where both the lessee and lessor have the right to terminate the renewal without significant penalty. (This means that typical fleet/spilt TRAC/synthetic leases that have 12-month terms and month-to-month termination/renewal options will not be considered short-term leases. This also means that renewals of most leases will be operating leases [not capitalized, i.e., off--balance sheet].)

Types of Long-Term Leases

FASB and the IASB decided that them are only two types of leases--a real estate lease and an equipment lease--and each type should use an accounting approach that best depicts the economic consequence of the lease contract. Exhibit 1 illustrates the approaches required for each type of lease. For real estate leases, the lessor will most likely use an operating lease approach, whereas the lessee will most likely follow a single-lease expense (SLE) approach. For equipment leases, the lessor will most likely follow a residual and receivable (R&R) approach, whereas the lessee will most likely follow an interest and amortization (I&A) approach. (Many critics believe that the economic consequences of an equipment lease will not be accurately portrayed by the lessee following the I&A approach [the front-ended cost model].)

The operating lease approach is the same as operating lease accounting under the existing rules, whereas the R&R approach by the lessor is a new method that will replace the existing direct finance lease accounting. Under the R&R approach, the lessor will be required to immediately record a profit, if any, on the lease of the ROU asset and to defer any related profit on the residual. Over the lease term, the lessor will accrete the initially recorded residual to the expected future value of the residual and amortize the receivable using effective interest amortization.

Unlike the lessor, the lessee has no operating lease accounting option and must record an ROU asset and lease liability at lease commencement. Subsequently, two alternative approaches are used to amortize the ROU asset and lease liability. The lessee will use either the 1&A approach (i.e., the financing approach) or the SLE approach (i.e., the straight-line approach), depending upon whether the lease is for equipment or real estate, respectively. (The names for the lessee approaches have gone through several iterations and are not yet "official." The nomenclature used here is from the July 2012 1ASB/FASB board meeting discussion papers, because these names are most likely to be used in the exposure draft.) Under the I&A approach, the ROU asset and lease liability are set up at the present value of the future lease payments, and then subsequently are amortized separately over the lease term. (It should be noted that leases viewed as financed purchases under the revenue recognition project will not be considered leases.) The reported lease cost is the sum of the asset depreciation and the effective interest on the liability. Under the SLE approach, the reported lease cost is the average rent accrued over the lease term (much the same as the operating lease under existing GAAP), and the ROU asset and lease liability are adjusted as of each balance sheet date to be the present value of the remaining lease payments. (The SLE approach appears to include substantive underpinnings from the proposed revenue recognition standard, which would not view a lease contract as a financing transaction. In other words, amortization of the liability separate from amortization of the asset, as in a financing arrangement, would not be appropriate. In the authors' opinion, the 1&A approach for equipment leases fails to view the ROU lease as an executory contract, and thus it is contrary to the legal status of an equipment lease.) The lease term, for both lessees and lessors, is the noncancellable contract period, adjusted for any significantly incentivized option to extend or terminate the contract length.

Lessor Accounting

As shown in Exhibit 1, lessor accounting will take either an operating approach or an R&R approach, depending upon whether the lease is considered a financing arrangement. If the lease is not considered to be a financing arrangement, the lessor will record an operating lease. Real estate leases are presumed to be operating leases unless the lease term is for a major part of the underlying asset's economic life when new, or the present value of payments equals substantially all the fair value of the underlying asset. The only financial effect will be the recording of rental receipts as under existing operating lease accounting.

If the lease is considered to be a financing arrangement, the lessor will use the R&R approach for all leases to one lessee of an entire asset or a physically distinct portion of a larger asset. Equipment leases are presumed to be financing leases, unless the lease term is for an insignificant part of the underlying asset's economic life when new or the present value of payments is insignificant relative to the fair value of the underlying asset. (As an exception, short-term leases may be accounted for using the current GAAP operating lease method, which produces an accounting result that is almost the same as the accounting for a direct finance lease under Statement of Financial Accounting Standard [SFAS] 13, Accounting for Leases.) As shown in Exhibit 2, any sales-type gross profit from the lease is attributed partly to the receivable and partly to the residual. The profit attributed to the receivable is recognized at lease commencement, whereas the profit attributed to the residual is deferred until disposition of the residual.

Under the R&R approach, assets are 1) the receivable calculated as the present value of the estimated lease payments--the minimum lease payment for the lessor does not include any guaranteed residual value when the lessee is not entitled to the residual profits on the residual and does not include any bargain purchase option, only the lessee's required lease payments are included--using the rate the lessor charges the lessee (generally, the implicit rate in the lease for equipment leases), and 2) the residual derived by subtracting the receivable from the book value of the underlying leased asset, plus any profit and deferred profit. Put another way, the residual is the difference between the receivable and the fair value of the underlying leased asset. Although this residual value amount initially represents an allocation of the carrying amount of the underlying leased asset, it will always equal the present value of the future expected residual. At the lease commencement, and each reporting period thereafter, the fair value of the underlying asset's utility will be represented partly in the receivable balance and partly in the residual balance.

When the underlying leased-asset fair value is equal to its book value, there is no sales-type gross profit on the lease. As shown in Ethibit 3, when the underlying leased asset fair value is greater than its book value, a profit must be recognized. The recognition of gross profit. however, is limited to the profit on the ROU asset transferred, calculated by multiplying the total gross profit by the percentage derived by comparing the present value of the lease payments receivable to the fair value of the underlying leased asset. The remainder of any gross profit is attributed to the residual and is deferred and not recognized in income until the residual is sold or released or until payment is demanded under a residual guarantee. The deferral of any sales-type gross profit means less up-front profit will be recognized as compared to existing GAAP. When the leased asset's fair value is less than its book value, a loss must be recognized on the ROU asset transferred, with no portion of it deferred on the residual. The entry on the lessor's books for recording the transfer of the leased asset to the lessee is as follows:


EXHIBIT 4 Comparison of Income Row under Old and New Accounting
by the Lessor

       Current
        Rules

Year    Lease     Depreciation  Profit[dagger]    Total     Percentage
      Payment         *                                     Difference

1     $103,631     ($70,000)               -   $33,631         62%

2     $103,631     ($70,000)               -   $33,631          3%

3     $103,631     ($70,000)               -   $33,631       (14%)

4     $103,631     ($70,000)               -   $33,631       (31%)

5     $103,631     ($70,000)        ($5,000)   $28,631       (24%)

                                              $163,155

      New Rules

Year    Total    Profit   Interest Income    Interest
                              (Accretion)       Income
                                               (Receivable)

1       $54,605  $14,896         $12,250       $27,459

2       $34,596        -         $13,231       $21,365

3       $29,073        -         $14,289       $14,784

4       $23,108        -         $15,432        $7,676

5       $21,771        -         $16,667             0

        $163,153

Year    Deferred
      Profit[double
         dagger]

1                 -

2                 -

3                 -

4                 -

5            $5,104
Note: Figures have been rounded.

* Depreciation = ($580,000-590,000) / 7 = $70,000 per year.
Alternatively, in practice some lessors depreciate to the
residual as salvage using the lease term as the depreciable
life ($580,000-$225,000) / 5 = $71,000.
[dagger]Asset beginning book value (BV)  $580,000

Accumulated depreciation (5 x $70,000)   $350,000

BV at end of lease term                  $230,000

Disposal for expected fair value (FV)    $225,000

Loss on sale of residual asset             $5,000

[dagger] Assuming the residual is sold at the end of
lease term for its expected FV.

Lease Payments Receivable  xx

Residual Asset             xx

Profit                     xx

Deterred Profit            xx

Leased Asset               xx


Where the following accounts are measured at the following amounts:


Lease       Present value of cash flows
Receivable  from lessee

Residual    Plug figure or present value of
Asset       expected future residual value

Profit      Refer to Exhibit 3

Deferred    Refer to Exhibit 3
Profit

Leased      Lessor's book value
Asset


During the lease term, the residual is accreted to its expected fair value using the implicit rate in the lease. Accretion of the residual will result in recording interest revenue over the lease term. This interest revenue represents accretion in the residual's initial value to its expected fair value at the conclusion of the lease. At the end of the lease term, the ROU residual asset is either sold either to a third party or re-leased. One of these events must occur before any deferred profit from the commencement entry can be recognized.

Possible cash payments from a guaranteed residual value or from a bargain purchase option will not be included in the minimum lease payment, and thus will not be included in the receivable because of the following:

* Bargain purchase option lease arrangements will likely be outside the scope of the new accounting rules and will be treated as a financing and purchase of the underlying asset. (FASB and the IASB are likely to scope out such leases because the newly proposed revenue recognition standard would consider those contracts loans to purchase the underlying asset.)

* Any guaranteed residual value by the lessee will be ignored by the lessor until the lessor files a claim.

Under the new lease accounting rules, there will always be a residual on the lessor's books, regardless of whether all or a portion of it is guaranteed by the lessee. Because the minimum lease payment, and thus the receivable, no longer includes the guaranteed residual value, the guarantee is now shifted away from the receivable balance and into the residual asset balance; as seen in the sidebar, An Example of R&R Equiment Lease Accounting by the Lessor, this will result in a higher portion of the gross profit being deferred. In addition, this means the guaranteed residual is not a financial asset that can be securitized off the balance sheet. Subsequent adjustment for impairment of the expected residual value will reset the accretion schedule starting with the book value at the reassessment point and then accreting to a new expected fair value at the end of the lease term by using an imputed rate of return.

The sidebar illustrates the typical accounting entries for a lessor.

Comparison of Results under Old and New Accounting by Lessor

Under existing GAAP, the equipment lease described in the sidebar would be an operating lease because none of the four criteria for capitalization can be met. This would mean that the leased asset remains on the lessor's books, the asset is depreciated over its useful life, and the lease payments received from the lessee represent rental income. Under the new rules, if this was a real estate lease where the term is not for a major part of the useful life and the present value of the payments is less than substantially all of the fair value of the leased asset, or if the equipment lease has an insignificant present value or life relative to the underlying asset, it would continue to be accounted for as an operating lease. Because the lease in the sidebar is an equipment lease that does not have an insignificant value or life relative to the underlying asset, the leased asset will be replaced on the lessor's books by a receivable and residual. The amortization of the receivable and the accretion of the residual will create a relatively higher income flow in the earlier part of the lease term. This distinction in income flow between the old and new rules is shown in Exhibit 4. Note that the new rules will produce a 62% higher income in the first year.

Lessee Accounting

Unlike the lessor, the lessee can no longer record an "operating lease" for the long-term lease of an entire asset or a physically distinct portion of a larger asset. Instead, for leases that are not designed as short-term, the lessee will record an ROU asset and a liability for estimated future lease payments. In most cases, an ROU lease is legally an executory contract. The lessee acquires a temporary right to control the use of the underlying asset; it does not purchase or control an ownership interest in the property. This temporary acquisition is designated as the ROU asset. The liability for making lease payments is not a financing arrangement, and as a consequence, it is not equivalent to debt because the lessor has no claim on the assets of the lessee in bankruptcy. (This distinction is important for a potential new lender analyzing the company.) The lessee must make its rent payments to obtain future use of the underlying leased asset's utility. Contracting the right to use an asset that requires ongoing performance (i.e., paying rent) is not the same as purchasing the underlying leased asset, because the ROU asset typically cannot be pledged or sold separately from the corresponding liability.

The value on the balance sheet of the capitalized lease liability each period is the present value of the remaining payments using the lessee's incremental borrowing rate at commencement. If them are initial direct costs, they are debited to a subaccount of the ROU asset and amortized straight-line over the lease term, charged to rent expense. The lessee's liability includes all potential payments under the lease contract. This would include any "in the money" lessee guaranteed residual value or a bargain ptu chase option. (At lease commencement, it is not typical for the expected future value of the residual to be less than the lessee guarantee, because current guidance--FASB Interpretation Number [FIN] 45. Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others--would require the present value of the difference to be recorded as a liability on the balance sheet. It is more likely for the guarintee to be in-the-money as the lease approuches expiry.)

This treatment is unlike the calculation of the receivable on the lessor's books, which specifically excludes any guarantees by the lessee or bargain purchase options. Although this potential nonparallel treatment could make the lessee's liability greater than the lessor's receivable, the respective balances reflect the economic value to each party. For the lessor, the receivable represents the utility of the underlying asset that is sold to the lessee (the residual represents the unsold utility). For the lessee, the liability to make payments represents the right to future access of the ROU asset's utility, including the utility from any in-the-money guaranteed residual or bargain purchase option.

Under existing GAAP, the "capital lease" recorded for a long-term lease would separate the asset from its related liability and require that the leased asset be depreciated over the lease term and that the liability be amortized using effective interest amortization. In other words, the lease is treated as a financing arrangement. Under the new rules (as shown in Exhibit 1), only a real estate lease that is for a significant part of the underlying asset's value or economic life or an equipment lease that is not for an insignificant part of the underlying asset's value or economic life would continue this capital lease treatment, now to be called the I&A approach by the FASB/IASB.

The new SLE approach will be used for a real estate lease that is not for a significant part of the underlying asset's value or economic life or an equipment lease that is for an insignificant part of the underlying asset's value or economic life. Lessees using the SLE approach will treat the ROU asset and its related liability together as one unified contract. The ROU asset will be accounted for as part of an executory contract whose initial size and subsequent amortization is determined by the lessee's liability to make payments, not by the use of the underlying leased asset. Accordingly, the ROU asset and lease liability will be adjusted in unison on each balance sheet date to equal the present value of the remaining lease payments (computed at the lessee's incremental borrowing rate).

Meanwhile, the income effect will mirror the cost pattern under existing GAAP for operating leases--that is, a constant rent expense over the lease term. Keeping a cost pattern consistent with existing operating leases preserves the presentation of rental costs as part of operating income in the income statement and as operating cash flow in the statement of cash flows. These new lessee approaches mean that most real estate leases will use the SLE approach, and, thus, will have a uniform cost pattern over the lease term. Conversely, most equipment leases will use the I&A approach, and, thus, will have front-loaded lease costs (because existing practice for most equipment leases is to use operating lease accounting, the new I&A approach will most likely cause equipment lessees to continue to keep records under existing rules for legal and tax purposes).

Impairment

As a lease approaches expiry, the ROU asset may become impaired. If impairment occurs, the following two possible out: comes exist:

* The usefulness of the underlying asset to the lessee can remain unaffected or be diminished.

* An in-the-money lessee guarantee may be created from a change in the expected future residual value. A change in expected residual value is a change in assumptions, in this case precipitated by impairment.

If the ROU asset's usefulness (utility) to the lessee is diminished, the ROU asset is written down by creating a contra asset account (ROU--Impairment) that is amortized straight-line over the remaining lease term as .a credit to amortization expense under the I&A approach or as a credit to rent expense under the SLE approach. The write-down of the ROU asset via the contra account allows the impairment loss to be taken in the period it occurs, while the subsequent amortization of the contra account allows the net amortization or rent expense to reflect the underlying asset's lowered usefulness to the lessee. In addition, a contra asset account is used under the SLE approach so that the ROU asset balance can continue to be calculated each period, along with the liability balance, as the present value of the lessee's payments over the remaining lease term. To maintain identical balances for the ROU asset and lease liability. any initial direct costs should be debited to "ROU--Initial Direct Costs" (a subaccount of the ROU asset) and subsequently should be amortized to rent expense. Under the I&A approach, a reduction of the ROU asset would accomplish the same result as using a contra account.

If events subsequent to the lease commencement cause a significant change in the expected future residual value, and this change in value produces in-the-money lessee guaranteed residual value, the liability and ROU asset balances must be adjusted from the point of change (under both approaches). This change should be reflected prospectively by including the present value of the in-the-money amount, together with the present value of the remaining lease payments, when determining the balance sheet value of the capitalized lease liability (and the ROU asset under the SLE approach). This present value calculation would continue to use the lessee's incremental borrowing rate at lease commencement.

Under the I&A approach, the newly amended lease liability amortization schedule will be used for determining interest expense over the remaining lease term, and the adjusted ROU asset amount will be depreciated over the remaining term. Under the SLE approach, the adjustment of the residual guarantee will be included in total rent expense to be accrued straight line over the remaining lease term. This will be accomplished by debiting rent expense by a constant amount each period. Accretion is used instead of initially setting up a liability and deferred rent expense for the full in-the-money amount, because the net liability under the lease contract would be overstated since the present value of the in-the-money amount is already included in the lease liability and ROU asset. Accreting the amount makes the net liability higher than the ROU asset balance each year of the accretion until expiry, when the difference will equal the liability for the in-the-money lessee guarantee.

The sidebar, An Example of Lease Accounting by the Lessee, illustrates the typical accounting entries for a lessee.

Comparison of Results under Old and New Accounting by Lessee

Under existing GAAP, the example equipment lease arrangement discussed in the sidebar would be an operating lease, because none of the four criteria for capitalization can be met. As a result, the rent expense payments by the lessee would represent the only effect on the lessee's books. Under the proposed guidance, an ROU asset and its related liability would appear on the balance sheet.

If the SLE approach could be used, both the ROU asset and liability would be amortized to their present value at the end of each reporting period. This would have no effect on income. The only effect on income under the SLE approach would be the same rent expense as under an existing operating lease.

The SLE approach, however, will not be allowed with the equipment lease used in the example. Given that the present value of lease payments is not insignificant relative to the fair value of the underlying asset, and the lease life is not an insignificant part of the underlying asset's life, an I&A approach will be required under the new lease rules. Using this approach, the lease will have a front-loaded cost pattern as shown in the sidebar. This approach will require separate asset amortization and liability amortization that will cause the combined income effect to have an accelerated cost early in the lease term and a diminished cost later.

If the example had been a capital lease under the existing rules--that is, if the terms of the lease allowed it to meet at least one of the four criteria for capitalization--the pattern of effect on income would be the same as under the newly required I&A approach.

The need to structure a lease arrangement to avoid capitalization will disappear under the proposed guidance. For the lessee, all leases will be capitalized. Reporting transparency is improved with a matching of expense to the benefit from use, and the presence of a lease asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet. (Matching might not occur with most equipment leases, which will have to follow the I&A approach. Since these are executory contracts, the cost for use of the ROU asset comes from the lease payments, not from the separate amortization of the lease liability and ROU asset.) Although the criticism of off--balance sheet accounting will be alleviated by the guidance, there will be a potential downside for equipment lessees due to the front-loaded cost pattern created by the I&A approach.

Transition

For lessees, existing capital leases will be grandfathered. All operating leases must be capitalized with a lease liability and an ROU asset recorded equal to the present value of the remaining rents using the current incremental borrowing rate. For sale-leasebacks, if the leaseback is a capital lease it will be grandfathered and any gain will continue to be amortized to income statement. If the sale-leaseback is an operating lease, the original sale-leaseback assumptions must be reevaluated under current rules and rebooked using either the I&A or SLE approach, with any unamortized gain booked to equity. Whatever the case, a lessee will be able to choose full retrospective accounting for all its leases.

For lessors, existing direct finance and sales-type leases will be grandfathered. All operating leases will be treated as though they are new leases for their remaining term using one of the new lessor methods described earlier. For R&R leases, the existing lease book value will be derecognized while at the same time any profit and deferred profit, the present value of the expected residual, and the present value of rents will be recognized. Leveraged leases will be booked as R&R leases, with the rents and debt reported at gross on the balance sheet and the earnings taken to date adjusted with an offset to equity.

Anticipating the Comments

The joint FASB/IASB lease accounting project has been more than six years in the making--but, ironically, we seem. to be back to where we started. Except for lessee accounting of equipment leases, the rules are virtually the same as SFAS 13, with all but short-term leases capitalized. Even though the facts regarding leases have not changed since FASB issued SFAS 13 in 1976, the boards are about to issue a new exposure draft that emphasizes the symmetry of lessor and lessee accounting, disregarding the substance of most equipment leasing arrangements. As result, the authors predict that the main issue in most comment letters will be why equipment leases are treated differently than real estate leases, when legally they involve the same obligations and transfer of a right of use. Standards should be based on principles, and the arbitrary rule that requires different treatment for equipment leases should be hard to defend.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXHIBIT 3

Calculation of Profit on ROU Asset and Deferred Profit on Residual Asset

When Fair Value (FV) Is Greater Than Book Value (BV)

Step 1: Calculate Gross Profit (GP)

GP = FV of Leased Asset - BV of Leased Asset

Step 2: Calculate Profit on ROU Asset

Profit on ROU Asset = GP x (Lease Payments Receivable / FV of Leased Asset)

Step 3: Calculate Deferred Profit on Residual

Deferred Profit on Residual = GP - Profit on ROU Asset

RELATED ARTICLE: AN EXAMPLE OF R&R EQUIPMENT LEASE ACCOUNTING BY THE LESSOR

The typical accounting entries recorded by the lessor include the following: 1) commencement of the lease, 2) accretion of the residual, 3) receipt of lease payments, and 4) lease expiration. As an illustration of the lessor's accounting entries and calculations, assume that the lessor company negotiates an equipment lease with the following facts:

* Fair value (FV) of leased asset is $600,000

* Book value (BV) of leased asset is $580,000

* Lessor's implicit rate of return is 8%

* Lease term is 5 years

* Asset life is 7 years

* The estimated residual value at the end of 5 years is 5225,000; at the end of 7 years, it is $90,000 (salvage value for book depreciation)

* Lessee guarantees $200,000 of ROU asset's residual value but is not entitled to residual gains

* Payments by the lessee are made "in advance."

Analysis of the Lease

Is the lease term for an insignificant part of underlying asset's economic life? No

Is the present value (PV) of lease payments insignificant relative to the RV of the underlying asset? No

As a result, use the residual and receivable (R&R) approach.

Commencement of the Lease

Lessor computes lease payments receivable and the residual


Fair value of leased asset         $600,000

Residual: PV of expected residual  $1531131
($225,000 at 8% for 5 years)

Receivable: Amount to be recovered   $44069
from lease payments


Lessor computes the lease payment to be paid by lessee

Note: The Lessor does not include any residual value guarantees by the lessee or any bargain purchase option in the lease payments calculation.

Required lease payments:

(Annuity due at 8% for 5 years with a PV of $446,869) = $103,630.76

Note: This lease example simplifies the lessor's payment calculation by excluding any bargain/compelling renewals, estimates of variable payments based on an index or rate, and any estimated in-the-money guaranteed residual. For example, if the payment depends on an index or rate (variable payment), it should be initially measured using the index or rate at lease commencement, and then subsequently reassessed at the end of each reporting period. Resulting changes in the lease payments receivable are recorded to interest expense for the current period portion and to the ROU asset for the future portion of the adjustment.

Because the leased asset RI is greater than the BV, compute profit and deferred profit

Step 1: Gross profit = FV - BV = $600,000 -$580,000 = $20,000

Step 2: Profit on sale of ROU asset = GP x (Lease receivable / FV of leased asset)

Profit on sale of ROU asset = $20,000 x ($446,869 / $600,000) = $14,896

Step 3: Deferred profit on residual = GP - Profit on ROU Asset

Deferred profit on residual = $20,000 - $14,896 = $5,104

Note: A higher portion of the gross profit is deferred when the guaranteed residual value is part of the residual asset, rather than part of the receivable.

Accounting entry, beginning of Year 1


Lease Payments Receivable      446,869

Residual ROU Asset             153,131

Profit on Sale of ROU Asset     14,896

Deferred Profit on Residual      5,104

Inventory - ROU Asset          580,000

Note: Deferred profit should be reported on the balance sheet
net of the residual asset


Accretion of the Residual ROU Asset

Prepare mi accretion schedule

Slop 1: Initial residual value = Present value ol expected residua

Initial residual value = $153,131

Step 2: End residual value = Expected FV of $225.000

Step 3: Accretion Table:


Year    Beginninq     Accretion Amount (Interest  Ending Residual
      Residual Value        Income at 8%)              Value

1            153,131                      12,250          165,381

2            165,381                      13,231          178,612

3            178,612                      14,289          192,901

4            192,901                     135,432          208,333

5            208,333                      16,667          250,000

Note: The ending residual value should not be net of the lessee's
guarantee, because under the new rules, the lessee guarantee will
not be included in the minimum lease payment, hence the receivable.


Accounting entry, of Year 1


Residual ROU Asset           125,250

Interest Income              125,250


Receipt of Lease Payments

Determine the amortization of the lease receivable

Amortization of the receivable at 8% over the 7-year lease life (figures are rounded):


Year   Beg. of   Payment   Interest  Reduction  Adjusted
        Year               Expense       in      Liability
      Liability                      Liability   Balance
       Balance

1     $446.3699  $103.631             $103.361   $343,238

2      $343,238  $103,631   $27,459    $76,172   $267,066

3      $267.066  $103,631   $27,459    $82,265   $200,678
       +$15,877

4      $200.678  $103,631   $21,365    $87,577   $113,101

5      $113.101  $103,631    $9,048    $94,583    $18.519

6       $18,519   $20.000    $1,481    $18,519          0
                        *


Accounting entries, end of Year 1 and Year 2


Interest Receivable        27,459

Interest Income            27,459

Cash                      103,631

Interest Receivable        27,459

Lease Payments Receivable  76,172


Lease Expiration

Asset returned to lessor


Invento--ROU Asset        225,000

Residual ROU Asset        225,000


Sale of residual to third party for estimated FV


Cash                         225,000

Deferred Profit on Residual    5,104

Inventory--ROU Asset         225,000

Profit on Sale                 5,104


Sale of residual for less than estimated FV. but more than lessee guarantee

The sale to a third party is for $210,000 cash. A loss is recorded on the sale of ($225.000 - $210,000) - $5,104 deferred profit


Cash                            210,000

Loss on Sale of Residual Asset    9,896

Deferred Profit on Residual       5,104

Inventory ROU--Asset            225,000


Sale of rcsidudl for less than estimated FV and less than lessee guarantee

The sale to a third party is for SI90,000 cash, with demand for payment from lessee of $10,000 ($200,000 - $190,0001 for guarantee of residual value. A loss is recorded on the sale as ($225,000 - $200,000) - $5.104 deferred profit.


Cash                            $190,000

Receivable from Lessee for GRV   $10,000

Loss on Sale of Residual Asset   $19,896

Deterred Profit on Residual       $5,104

Inventory--ROU Asset            $225,000


RELATED ARTICLE: AN EXAMPLE OF LEASE ACCOUNTING BY THE LESSEE

The typical accounting entries recorded by the lessee include the following: 1) commencement of the lease, 2) year-end adjustment of the ROU asset and liability balances to present value (PV), 3) lease payments, and 4) lease expiration. In addition, during the lease term, the ROU asset could be impaired. To illustrate the lessee's accounting entries and calculations, the same lease facts from the lessor example are used. It is assumed that the lessee's incremental borrowing rate is equal to the lessor's implicit rate.

Commencement of the Lease (under Both Approaches)

Lessee Computes Liability for Lease Payments and ROU Asset

PV of the $103,630.76 lease payments over 5 years at 8% = $446,869

Note: PV is computed using the lessee's incremental borrowing rate. The PV of the lessee's liability is the same amount as the lessor's receivable, because, in this example, the lessee's incremental rate is equal to the lessor's implicit rate. This example does not have any in-the-money lessee guaranteed residual value at commencement. If it did, the liability and ROU asset would be increased by the PV of the amount by which the lessee's guarantee exceeded the expected future residual value. An in-the-money amount would also increase the rent expense by a constant amount each period that accretes the liability for residual guarantee to a balance equal to the in-the-money guarantee.

Liability to make lease payments = $446,869

ROU asset = $446,869

Lease Expiration

Asset Returned to Lessor


ROU Asset                       446,869

Liability for Lease Payments    446,869


Year-end Adjustment of ROU Asset and Liability Balances

Using the l&A Approach

Lessee prepares amortization schedules for The liability and ROU asset

Amortization of the liability at 8% over the 5-year lease life:


 Year   Beg. of    Payment    Interest   Reduction   Adjusted
         Year                  Expense    in          Liability
         Liability                        Liability   Balance
         Balance

1       $446,869   $103,631                $103,361  $343,238

2       $343,238   $103,631    $27,459     $76,172   $267,066

3       $267,066   $103,631    $21,365     $82,265   $184,801

4       $184,801   $103,631    $14,784     $88,847   $595,954

5        $95,954   $103,631     $7,676     $95,954        0 *

* When the lease expires, even though the underlying leased asset
may have a residual value when retumed to the lessor, from the
lessee's perspective the nght-to-use has expired and so has the
obligation to pay for it The balances of the ROU asset and its
related liability should be zero at the tease expiry, except for
any in-the-money lessee guarantee previously anticipated. The
payable and related income effect is booked if and when demand
is made for payment ot the lessee guarantee


Amortization of ROU asset

Straight-line amortization = ($446.869 / 5 years $189,374 per year

Accounting adjusting entries, end of Year 1 (tor beginning of Year 2)


Intnmst Fxpense               27,459

Liabihty to; Lease Payments   76,172

Cash                         103,631

Amortization Expense          89,374

ROU Asset                     89,374


Using the SLE Approach

Lessee prepares an amortization schedule for Libility and related ROU Asset

Amortization of the liability and ROU Asset at 8% over the 5-year lease life:


Year   Beg. of   Payment   Offsetting  Reduction    Adjusted
        Year                Interest       in       Liability
      Liability             Element    Liability    and ROU
       and ROU                          and ROU     Asset
        Asset                            Asset      Balance
       Balance

1      $446,869  $103,631               $103,361   $343,238

2      $343.238  $103,631     $27,459    $76,172   $267,066

3      $267,066  $103,631     $21,365    $82,265   $184,801

4      $184,801  $103,631     $14.784    $88,847    $95,954

5       $95.354  $103,631      $7,676    $95,954        0 *


Accounting adjusting entry, end of Year 1 (or beginning of Year 2)


Liability for Lease Payments   76,172

ROU Asset                      76,172

Rent Expense *                103,631

Rent Payable                  103,631

Rent Payable                  103,631

Cash                          103,631

* In the case of uneven lease payments, the average
lease payment is accrued.


Comparison of Lease Cost under Both Approaches


I&A Approach       Year 1    Year 2    Year 3    Year 4    Year 5

Interest          $27,459   $21,365   $14,784    $7,676         0

Amortization      $89,374   $89,374   $89,374   $89,374   $89,374

Total            $116,833  $110,739  $104,158   $97,050   $89,374
SLE Approach

Average Payment  $103,631  $103,631  $103,631  $103,631  $103,631


Lease Expiration

Asset Returned to Lessor

No entry required, ROU Asset and Liability balances are zero.

Lessor Sells Residual to Third Party for Loss Than Amount Gunranteed by Lestee

Sale is to third party for $190,000 cash, with demand for payment from lessee of $10,000 ($200.000 - $190,000) For guarantee of residual value. When demand for payment is received:


Loss on Guarantee at Lease Residual  10,000

Payable to Lessor                    10,000


Impairment

Assume $75,000 impairment of the ROU asset at the beginning of Year 3

The impairment loss should be credited to the contra asset account "ROU-Impatrment" and subsequently amortized straight-line as a credit to rent expense under the financing approach and a credit to the ROU amortization expense under the SLE approach.

Record Impairment


Impairment Loss                      75,000

ROU-Impairment                       75,000


Amortization at end of Year 3

$75,000 spread over years 3. 4. and 5. $75,000 / 3 = $25,000

Entry under the I&A Approach:


ROU Impairment                          25,000

Rent Expense                            25,000


Entry under the SLE Approach:


ROU Asset                               25,000

Amortization Expense                    25,000


Assume a change in expected future residual value from $225,000 to $180,000 at the beginning of Year 3.

Find the in-the-money guaranteed residual value:


Guaranteed residual          200,000

New expected future residua  180,000

In-the-money guarantee        20,000


Find the present value IPV) of in-the-money guaranteed residual value:

PV of S20.000 at 8%, 3 years = S15.876.64

Under the I&A Approach

Adjust the amortization schedule above by adding the PV of the guarantee to the beginning Year 3 balance for liability:


Year   Beg. of   Payment   Interest  Reduction  Adjusted
        Year               Expense       in       Liability
      Liability                      Liability   Balance
       Balance

1     $446.3699  $103.631             $103.361   $343,238

2      $343,238  $103,631   $27,459    $76,172   $267,066

3      $267.066  $103,631   $27,459    $82,265   $200,678
       +$15,877

4      $200.678  $103,631   $21,365    $87,577   $113,101

5      $113.101  $103,631    $9,048    $94,583    $18.519

6       $18,519   $20.000    $1,481    $18,519          0
                        *
The $20,000 balance represents the I ability for in-the-money
residual value.


New adjusting entry for the end of Year 3 (or beginning of Year 4):


Interest Expense               16,054

Liability for Lease Payments   87,577

Cash                          103,631


Under the SLE Approach

In three years, at lease expiry, the liability for residual value guarantee will have accreted to a balance of $20,000--the in-the-money amount The annual adjustment to accrued rent over the remaining lease term:


Rent Expense (1/3 of $20,000)  6,666.67

Rent Payable                   6,666.67


Adjust the Amortization Schedule from above by adding the PV of the guarantee to the beginning Year 3 balance for liability and ROU asset.


Year   Beg. of   Payment   Offsetting  Reduction  Adjusted
        Year                Interest       in       Liability
      Liability              element     Liability   Balance
       Balance

1      $446.869  $103,631           -   $103,361   $343,238

2      $343,238  $103.631     $27,459    $76.172   $267.066

3      $267.066  $103,631     $21,365    $82,265   $200,678
      +SI 5.877

4      $200,678  $103,631    $I 6,054    $87,577   $113,101

5      $113,101  $103,631      $9,048    $94,583    $18,519

6       $18,519   $20,000      $1,481    $18,519          0
                        *

* The $20,000 balance representsme liability for in-the-money
residual value.


Demand for payment from the lessor:


Rent Payable  20,000

Cash          20,000

Note: This entry represents tho cash payment shown in the amortization
schedule for the in-the-money guarantee.


Kevin AIL Lightner, PhD, is a professor in the Charles W. Lamden School of Accountancy in the college of business administration at San Diego State University San Diego, Calif Bill Bosco, CPA, is a member of the IASB/FASB Lease Working Group and president of Leasing 101, Suffem, N.Y. David a DeBoskey, PhD, CPA, is an assistant professor, also in the Charles W. Lundell School of Accountancy in. the college gib/Ise/less administration at San Diego State University, Sharon M. Lightner, PhD, is the dean of the college of business administration at California State University--San Marcos,
COPYRIGHT 2013 New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:standards setting
Author:Lightner, Kevin M.; Bosco, Bill; DeBoskey, David G.; Lightner, Sharon M.
Publication:The CPA Journal
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2013
Words:7437
Previous Article:Maximizing revenue opportunities with CRM systems.
Next Article:The question of mandatory audit firm rotation: would investors benefit?
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters