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

Olympics Tracker: These Athletes Who Toiled At Accounting Firms Are Going For Gold In Tokyo (UPDATE)

[Updated post from July 26 with additional athletes, event results.] If time spent consecutively looking at spreadsheets, eating hours, and submitting timesheets late were Olympic events, accountants would be among the strongest contenders for a gold medal during the summer games in Tokyo. But there have actually been accounting Olympians—Gwen Jorgensen and Alexandre Bilodeau to […]

Friday Footnotes: EY’s Deep and Cozy Trouble; KPMG Avoids Audit Trial; GT’s New Digs | 7.23.21

EY Accused of Actively Concealing NMC Health Audit Fraud From Investors [Bloomberg] Ernst & Young faces accusations it “actively concealed” a six-year fraud from investors in a fresh lawsuit over its auditing work for the troubled NMC Health. The hospital operator’s founder, Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, said the accounting giant enjoyed a “deep and cozy” relationship […]