November 27, 2021

FASB, IASB Making Damn Sure They Don’t Mess Up Their Revenue Recognition Proposals

Because, god, wouldn’t that be awkward?

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US-based Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) agreed today to re-expose their revised proposals for a common revenue recognition standard. Re-exposing the revised proposals will provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on revisions the boards have undertaken since the publication of an exposure draft on revenue recognition in June 2010.

It was the unanimous view of the boards that while there was no formal due process requirement to re-expose the proposals it was appropriate to go beyond established due process given the importance of the revenue number to all companies and the need to take all possible steps to avoid unintended consequences.

Sir David Tweedie admits that, “It is important that we get this right, first time,” and “the boards and staff have undertaken an unprecedented level of outreach to get us to this point, and why we are keen to treble-check that our conclusions are robust and can be implemented with minimal disruption.”

Maybe I’m reading too much into that statement but it sounds as though the Boards may be trying to stave off more nasty letters.

[via FAF/IFRS Foundation]

Because, god, wouldn’t that be awkward?

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US-based Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) agreed today to re-expose their revised proposals for a common revenue recognition standard. Re-exposing the revised proposals will provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on revisions the boards have undertaken since the publication of an exposure draft on revenue recognition in June 2010.

It was the unanimous view of the boards that while there was no formal due process requirement to re-expose the proposals it was appropriate to go beyond established due process given the importance of the revenue number to all companies and the need to take all possible steps to avoid unintended consequences.

Sir David Tweedie admits that, “It is important that we get this right, first time,” and “the boards and staff have undertaken an unprecedented level of outreach to get us to this point, and why we are keen to treble-check that our conclusions are robust and can be implemented with minimal disruption.”

Maybe I’m reading too much into that statement but it sounds as though the Boards may be trying to stave off more nasty letters.

[via FAF/IFRS Foundation]

Latest Accounting Jobs--Apply Now:

Have something to add to this story? Give us a shout by email, Twitter, or text/call the tipline at 202-505-8885. As always, all tips are anonymous.

Related articles

Black Friday Footnotes: Carillion Liquidator Wants Lots of KPMG Money; EY Can’t Handle the Truth; Mattel and PwC Settle with Investors | 11.26.21

Carillion Liquidator Seeks $336 Million From KPMG [Bloomberg] The U.K. government agency charged with liquidating Carillion Plc has lodged a claim at the high court against auditor KPMG, the Sunday Times reported. The official receiver has accused KPMG of negligence in its audit of the U.K. contractor and quantified claims of about 250 million pounds […]