option and a marketing offer (i.e. as an expense). Nor did it address how to account for
options that provide a material right. As a result, some entities may have effectively
accounted for such options as marketing offers. IFRS 15’s requirements on the amount
of the transaction price to be allocated to the option differ significantly from previous
practice due to the lack of guidance in legacy IFRS (see 7.1.5 below).
Significant judgement may be required to determine whether a customer option represents
a material right. This determination is important because it affects the accounting and
disclosures for the contract at inception and throughout the life of the contract.
The standard includes the following example to illustrate the determination of whether
an option represents a material right (see 7.1.5 below for a discussion of the
measurement of options that are separate performance obligations). [IFRS 15.IE250-IE253].
Example 28.27: Option that provides the customer with a material right (discount
voucher)
An entity enters into a contract for the sale of Product A for CU100. As part of the contract, the entity gives
the customer a 40 per cent discount voucher for any future purchases up to CU100 in the next 30 days. The
entity intends to offer a 10 per cent discount on all sales during the next 30 days as part of a seasonal
promotion. The 10 per cent discount cannot be used in addition to the 40 per cent discount voucher.
2084 Chapter 28
Because all customers will receive a 10 per cent discount on purchases during the next 30 days, the only
discount that provides the customer with a material right is the discount that is incremental to that 10 per cent
(i.e. the additional 30 per cent discount). The entity accounts for the promise to provide the incremental
discount as a performance obligation in the contract for the sale of Product A.
To estimate the stand-alone selling price of the discount voucher in accordance with paragraph B42 of
IFRS 15, the entity estimates an 80 per cent likelihood that a customer will redeem the voucher and that a
customer will, on average, purchase CU50 of additional products. Consequently, the entity’s estimated stand-
alone selling price of the discount voucher is CU12 (CU50 average purchase price of additional products ×
30 per cent incremental discount × 80 per cent likelihood of exercising the option). The stand-alone selling
prices of Product A and the discount voucher and the resulting allocation of the CU100 transaction price are
as follows:
Performance obligations
Stand-alone selling price
CU
Product A
100
Discount voucher 12
Total 112
Allocated transaction price
Product A
89
(CU100 ÷ CU112 × CU100)
Discount voucher
11
(CU12 ÷ CU112 × CU100)
Total 100
The entity allocates CU89 to Product A and recognises revenue for Product A when control transfers. The
entity allocates CU11 to the discount voucher and recognises revenue for the voucher when the customer
redeems it for goods or services or when it expires.
5.6.1
Implementation questions on customer options for additional goods
or services
5.6.1.A
Which transactions to consider when assessing customer options for
additional goods or services
At their October 2014 meeting, the TRG members discussed whether entities should
consider only the current transaction or also past and future transactions with the same
customer when determining whether an option for additional goods or services
provides the customer with a material right.
The TRG members generally agreed that entities should consider all relevant
transactions with a customer (i.e. current, past and future transactions), including those
that provide accumulating incentives, such as loyalty programmes, when determining
whether an option represents a material right. That is, the evaluation is not solely
performed in relation to the current transaction.52
5.6.1.B
Nature of evaluation of customer options: quantitative versus qualitative
In October 2014, the TRG members considered whether the material right evaluation is
solely a quantitative evaluation or whether it should also consider qualitative factors.
The TRG members generally agreed that the evaluation should consider both
quantitative and qualitative factors (e.g. what a new customer would pay for the same
service, the availability and pricing of competitors’ service alternatives, whether the
average customer life indicates that the fee provides an incentive for customers to
Revenue
2085
remain beyond the stated contract term, whether the right accumulates). This is because
a customer’s perspective on what constitutes a ‘material right’ may consider qualitative
factors. This is consistent with the notion that when identifying promised goods or
services in Step 2, an entity considers reasonable expectations of the customer that the
entity will transfer a good or service to it.53
5.6.1.C
Distinguishing between a customer option and variable consideration
In November 2015, the TRG members were asked to consider how an entity would
distinguish between a contract that contains an option to purchase additional goods or
services and a contract that includes variable consideration (see 6.2 below) based on a
variable quantity (e.g. a usage-based fee).54
Entities have found it challenging to distinguish between a contract that includes
customer options to purchase additional goods or services and one that includes
variable consideration based on a variable quantity (e.g. a usage-based fee). This is
because, under both types of contracts, the ultimate quantity of goods or services to be
transferred to the customer is often unknown at contact inception. The TRG members
generally agreed that this determination requires judgement and consideration of the
facts and circumstances. They also generally agreed that the TRG agenda paper on this
question provides a framework that helps entities to make this determination.
This determination is important because it affects the accounting for the contract at
inception and throughout the life of the contract, as well as disclosures. If an entity
concludes that a customer option for additional goods or services provides a material
right, the option itself is deemed to be a performance obligation in the contract, but the
underlying goods or services are not accounted for until the option is exercised (as
discussed at 5.6.1.D below). As a result, the entity is required to allocate a portion of the
transaction price to the material right at contract inception and to recognise that
revenue when or as the option is exercised or the option expires. If an entity, instead,
concludes that an option for additional goods or services is not a material right, there is
no accounting for the option and no accounting for the underlying optional goods or
services until those subsequent purchases occur.
However, if the contract includes variable consideration (rather than a customer
option), an entity has to estimate at contract inception the variable consideration<
br />
expected over the life of the contract and update that estimate each reporting period
(subject to the constraint on variable consideration) (see 6.2 below). There are also more
disclosures required for variable consideration (e.g. the requirement to disclose the
remaining transaction price for unsatisfied performance obligations) (see 11.4.1 below)
than for options that are not determined to be material rights.
The TRG agenda paper explained that the first step (in determining whether a contract
involving variable quantities of goods or services should be accounted for as a contract
containing customer options or variable consideration) is for the entity to determine the
nature of its promise in providing goods or services to the customer and the rights and
obligations of each party.
In a contract in which the variable quantity of goods or services results in variable
consideration, the nature of the entity’s promise is to transfer to the customer an overall
service. In providing this overall service, an entity may perform individual tasks or activities.
2086 Chapter 28
At contract inception, the entity is presently obliged by the terms and conditions of the
contract to transfer all promised goods or services provided under the contract and the
customer is obliged to pay for those promised goods or services. This is because the
customer entered into a contract that obliges the vendor to transfer those goods or services.
The customer’s subsequent actions to utilise the service affect the measurement of revenue
(in the form of variable consideration), but do not oblige the vendor to provide additional
distinct goods or services beyond those promised in the contract.
For example, consider a contract between a transaction processor and a customer in
which the processor will process all of the customer’s transactions in exchange for a
fee paid for each transaction processed. The ultimate quantity of transactions that will
be processed is not known. The nature of the entity’s promise is to provide the
customer with continuous access to the processing platform so that submitted
transactions are processed. By entering into the contract, the customer has made a
purchasing decision that obligates the entity to provide continuous access to the
transaction processing platform. The consideration paid by the customer results from
events (i.e. additional transactions being submitted for processing to the processor)
that occur after (or as) the entity transfers the payment processing service. The
customer’s actions do not obligate the processor to provide additional distinct goods
or services because the processor is already obligated (starting at contract inception)
to process all transactions submitted to it.
Another example described in the TRG agenda paper of contracts that may include
variable consideration was related to certain IT outsourcing contracts. Under this type
of contract (similar to the transaction processing contract, discussed above), the vendor
provides continuous delivery of a service over the contract term and the amount of
service provided is variable.
Example 28.28: Variable consideration (IT outsourcing arrangement)
An entity enters into a 10-year IT outsourcing arrangement with a customer in which it provides continuous
delivery of outsourced activities over the contract term. The entity provides server capacity, manages the
customer’s software portfolio and runs an IT help desk. The total monthly invoice is calculated based on
different units consumed for the respective activities. For example, the billings might be based on millions of
instructions per second of computing power, the number of software applications used or the number of
employees supported. The price per unit differs for each type of activity.
At contract inception, it is unknown how many outsourced activities the entity will perform for the customer
throughout the life of the contract. The question that arises is whether the customer makes optional purchases
when it sends activities to the entity to be performed or whether its use of the service affects the measurement
of revenue (in the form of variable consideration).
The conclusion in the TRG agenda paper was that this contract is likely to contain variable consideration
because of the nature of the entity’s promise. The customer is paying for the entity to stand ready to perform
in an outsourcing capacity on any given day. The customer does not make a separate purchasing decision
each time it sends a unit for processing. Instead, the customer made its purchasing decision when it entered
into the outsourcing contract with the entity. Therefore, the customer’s actions to use the service also do not
oblige the entity to provide any additional distinct goods or services.
In contrast, when an entity provides a customer option, the nature of its promise is to
provide the quantity of goods or services specified in the contract, if any, and a right for
the customer to choose the amount of additional distinct goods or services the customer
will purchase. That is, the entity is not obliged to provide any additional distinct goods
Revenue
2087
or services until the customer exercises the option. The customer has a contractual right
that allows it to choose the amount of additional distinct goods or services to purchase,
but the customer has to make a separate purchasing decision to obtain those additional
distinct goods or services. Prior to the customer’s exercise of that right, the entity is not
obligated to provide (nor does it have a right to consideration for transferring) those
goods or services.
The TRG agenda paper included the following example of a contract that includes a
customer option (rather than variable consideration): Entity B enters into a contract to
provide 100 widgets to Customer Y in return for consideration of $10 per widget. Each
widget is a distinct good transferred at a point in time. The contract also gives Customer Y
the right to purchase additional widgets at the stand-alone selling price of $10 per widget.
Therefore, the quantity that may be purchased by Customer Y is variable.
The conclusion in the TRG agenda paper was that, while the quantity of widgets that
may be purchased is variable, the transaction price for the existing contract is fixed at
$1,000 [100 widgets × $10/widget]. That is, the transaction price only includes the
consideration for the 100 widgets specified in the contract and the customer’s decision
to purchase additional widgets is an option. While Entity B may be required to deliver
additional widgets in the future, Entity B is not legally obligated to provide the additional
widgets until Customer Y exercises the option. In this example, the option is accounted
for as a separate contract because there is no material right, since the pricing of the
option is at the stand-alone selling price of the widgets.
The TRG agenda paper also included the following example of a contract in which the
variable quantity of goods or services includes a customer option.
Example 28.29: Customer option55
A supplier enters into a five-year master supply arrangement in which the supplier is obligated to produce
and sell parts to a customer at the customer’s request. That is, the supplier is not obligated to transfer
any
parts until the customer submits a purchase order. In addition, the customer is not obligated to purchase any
parts; however, it is highly likely it will do so because the part is required to manufacture the customer’s
product and it is not practical to obtain parts from multiple suppliers. Each part is determined to a distinct
good that transfers to the customer at a point in time.
The conclusion in the TRG agenda paper was that the nature of the promise in this example is the delivery of
parts (and not a service of standing ready to produce and sell parts). That is, the contract provides the customer
with a right to choose the quantity of additional distinct goods (i.e. it provides a customer option), rather than
a right to use the services for which control to the customer has (or is currently being) transferred (such as in
the transaction processor example above). Similarly, the supplier is not obligated to transfer any parts until
the customer submits the purchase order (another important factor in distinguishing a customer option from
variable consideration). In contrast, in the other fact patterns the vendor is obligated to make the promised
services available to the customer without any additional decisions made by the customer.
The TRG agenda paper contrasted this example with other contracts that may include a stand-ready obligation
(e.g. a customer’s use of a health club). When the customer submits a purchase order under the master supply
arrangement, it is contracting for a specific number of distinct goods, which creates new performance
obligations for the supplier. In contrast, a customer using services in a health club is using services that the
health club is already obligated to provide under the present contract. That is, there are no new obligations
arising from the customer’s usage.
The TRG agenda paper also included the following example of a contract in which the
variable quantity of goods or services results in variable consideration.
2088 Chapter 28
Example 28.30: Variable consideration (variable quantities of goods or services)56
Entity A enters into a contract to provide equipment to Customer X. The equipment is a single performance
obligation transferred at a point in time. Entity A charges Customer X based on its usage of the equipment at
International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards Page 413
