provides such services. For example, an entity may recognise little or no revenue in the
first year of a three-year service-type warranty if its historical data indicates that it only
provides warranty services in the second and third years of the warranty period.
Considerations for determining the appropriate pattern of revenue recognition are
described at 8.2 above, including those for stand-ready obligations. If payment for the
service-type warranty is received upfront, an entity should also evaluate whether a
significant financing component exists (see 6.5 above).
2254 Chapter 28
In some instances, entities that sell service-type warranties will buy insurance to protect
themselves against the potential costs of performing under such warranties. Although
the anticipated insurance proceeds might offset any losses that the entity might incur,
immediate revenue recognition for the price of the service-type warranty is not
appropriate. The entity has not been relieved of its obligation to perform under the
terms of the warranty contract and, therefore, a liability still exists. Accordingly, the
warranty obligation and any anticipated proceeds related to the insurance coverage
need to be accounted for separately (unless the insurer has legally assumed the warranty
obligation and the customer has acknowledged that fact).
Changes in the estimate of the costs to satisfy service-type warranty performance
obligations do not result in a revision to the original relative stand-alone selling price
allocation (or the resulting allocated amount of the transaction price that is recognised
as revenue for the service-type warranty performance obligation). For example, an
entity may discover two months after a product is shipped that the cost of a part
acquired from a third-party manufacturer has tripled and that, as a result, it will cost the
entity significantly more to replace that part if a warranty claim is made. This change
does not affect the amount of transaction price that the entity allocates to the service-
type warranty. This is because the stand-alone selling price is determined at contract
inception and is not updated to reflect changes between contract inception and when
performance is complete. However, for future contracts involving the same warranty,
the entity would need to determine whether to revise the stand-alone selling price
because of the increase in the costs to satisfy the warranty and, if so, use that revised
price for future allocations (see 7.1.3 above).
10.1.3 Assurance-type
warranties
The Board concluded that assurance-type warranties do not provide an additional
good or service to the customer (i.e. they are not separate performance obligations).
By providing this type of warranty, the selling entity has effectively provided a
guarantee of quality. In accordance with paragraph B30 of IFRS 15, these types of
warranties are accounted for as warranty obligations and the estimated cost of
satisfying them is accrued in accordance with the requirements in IAS 37. [IFRS 15.B30,
BC376]. Once recorded, the warranty liability is assessed on an ongoing basis in
accordance with IAS 37.
An entity might recognise revenue for sales including assurance-type warranties when
control of the goods or services is transferred to the customer, assuming the
arrangement has met the criteria to be considered a contract under IFRS 15 and the
entity’s costs of honouring its warranty obligations are reasonably estimable.
Assurance-type warranties are accounted for outside of the scope of IFRS 15.
Therefore, if an entity elects to use a costs incurred measure of progress for over time
revenue recognition of the related good or service, the costs of satisfying an assurance-
type warranty are excluded (i.e. excluded from both the numerator and the
denominator in the measure of progress calculation. See 8.2 above for further
discussion on measuring progress over time).
Revenue
2255
10.1.4
Contracts that contain both assurance and service-type warranties
Some contracts may include both an assurance-type warranty and a service-type
warranty, as illustrated below. However, if an entity provides both an assurance-type
and service-type warranty within a contract and the entity cannot reasonably account
for them separately, the warranties are accounted for as a single performance obligation
(i.e. revenue would be allocated to the combined warranty and recognised over the
period the warranty services are provided). [IFRS 15.B32].
When an assurance-type warranty and a service-type warranty can be accounted for
separately, an entity is required to accrue for the expected costs associated with the
assurance-type warranty and defer the revenue for the service-type warranty, as
illustrated in Example 28.82.
Example 28.82: Service-type and assurance-type warranties
An entity manufactures and sells computers that include an assurance-type warranty for the first 90 days. The
entity offers an optional ‘extended coverage’ plan under which it will repair or replace any defective part for
three years from the expiration of the assurance-type warranty. Since the optional ‘extended coverage’ plan
is sold separately, the entity determines that the three years of extended coverage represent a separate
performance obligation (i.e. a service-type warranty).
The total transaction price for the sale of a computer and the extended warranty is $3,600. The entity
determines that the stand-alone selling prices of the computer and the extended warranty are $3,200 and $400,
respectively. The inventory value of the computer is $1,440. Furthermore, the entity estimates that, based on
its experience, it will incur $200 in costs to repair defects that arise within the 90-day coverage period for the
assurance-type warranty. As a result, the entity will record the following entries:
Dr. Cash/Trade receivables
$3,600
Dr. Warranty expense
$200
Cr. Accrued warranty costs (assurance-type warranty)
$200
Cr. Contract liability (service-type warranty)
$400
Cr. Revenue
$3,200
To record revenue and contract liabilities related to warranties.
Dr. Cost of goods sold
$1,440
Cr. Inventory
$1,440
To derecognise inventory and recognise cost of goods sold.
The entity derecognises the accrued warranty liability associated with the assurance-type warranty as actual
warranty costs are incurred during the first 90 days after the customer receives the computer. The entity
recognises the contract liability associated with the service-type warranty as revenue during the contract warranty
period and recognises the costs associated with providing the service-type warranty as they are incurred. The
entity would need to be able to determine whether the repair costs incurred are applied against the warranty
reserve already established for claims that occur during the first 90 days or recognised as an expense as incurred.
Accounting for both assurance-type warranties and service-type warranties in the same
transaction may be complex. Entities may need to develop processes to match
individual warranty claims with the s
pecific warranty plans so that claims can be
analysed for the appropriate accounting treatment. This individual assessment of
warranty claims is necessary because the assurance-type warranty costs will have been
accrued previously, while the service-type warranty costs are expenses that need to be
recognised in the period in which they are incurred, as illustrated in Example 28.83.
2256 Chapter 28
Example 28.83: Service-type and assurance-type warranty costs
Assume the same facts as in Example 28.82, but assume the entity has sold 500 computers during the year.
In January of the following year, $10,000 of warranty claims are submitted by customers. The entity analyses
each claim and identifies the specific computer sale to which the claims relate. The entity needs to do this in
order to determine eligibility under the warranty plans and the appropriate accounting treatment under the
warranty plans.
The entity determines that a portion of the claims, costing $2,500 for repair and replacement parts, are covered
by the assurance-type warranty plan. As shown above in Example 28.82, the expected cost of each assurance-
type warranty was accrued at the time of the sale. The entity records the following entry to derecognise a
portion of the warranty liability:
Dr. Accrued warranty costs (assurance-type warranty)
$2,500
Cr. Cash
$2,500
To derecognise the assurance-type warranty liability as the costs are incurred.
The entity also determines that a portion of the claims, costing $7,000 for repair and replacement parts, are
eligible under the ‘extended coverage’ plan (i.e. the service-type warranty). The entity records the following
entry to recognise the costs associated with the service-type warranty:
Dr. Warranty expense
$7,000
Cr. Cash
$7,000
To record the costs of the service-type warranty as the costs are incurred.
The entity also determines that $500 of the claims are not eligible under either warranty plan. This is because
the claims relate to incidents that occurred after the 90-day coverage period for the assurance-type warranty
and the customers in those transactions did not purchase the extended warranty coverage. The entity rejects
these customer claims.
The requirements for assurance-type warranties, as discussed at 10.1.3 above, are
essentially the same as practice under legacy IFRS. The requirements for service-type
warranties may differ from previous practice, particularly in relation to the amount of
transaction price that is allocated to the warranty performance obligation, as is
discussed at 10.1.2 above. Previously, entities that provided separate extended
warranties often deferred an amount equal to the stated price of the warranty and
recorded that amount as revenue evenly over the warranty period. IFRS 15 requires an
entity to defer an allocated amount, based on a relative stand-alone selling price
allocation, which, in most cases, increases judgement and complexity.
Revenue
2257
10.2 Onerous
contracts
The Board decided to retain existing requirements for onerous contracts. Under IFRS,
the requirements in IAS 37 for onerous contracts apply to all contracts in the scope of
IFRS 15. The standard states that entities that are required to recognise a liability for
expected losses on contracts under IAS 37 continue to be required to do so. IAS 37
requires that, if an entity has a contract that is onerous, the present obligation under the
contract must be recognised and measured as a provision. However, before a separate
provision for an onerous contract is established, an entity recognises any impairment
loss that has occurred on assets dedicated to that contract in accordance with IAS 36 –
Impairment of Assets. [IAS 37.66, 69].
IAS 37 clarifies that many contracts (e.g. some routine purchase orders) can be cancelled
without paying compensation to the other party, and therefore there is no obligation.
Other contracts establish both rights and obligations for each of the contracting parties.
Where events make such a contract onerous, the contract falls within the scope of
IAS 37 and a liability exists which is recognised. In addition, executory contracts that
are not onerous fall outside its scope. IAS 37 goes on to define an onerous contract as ‘a
contract in which the unavoidable costs of meeting the obligations under the contract
exceed the economic benefits expected to be received under it. The unavoidable costs
under a contract reflect the least net cost of exiting from the contract, which is the lower
of the cost of fulfilling it and any compensation or penalties arising from failure to fulfil
it’. [IAS 37.67-68]. See Chapter 27 for further discussion.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify which costs an entity
considers when assessing whether a contract with a customer is onerous when applying
IAS 37. The request particularly focused on the application to contracts that were
previously within the scope of IAS 11. In order to avoid diversity in practice that could
arise when entities apply IFRS 15, the IFRS Interpretations Committee recommended
to the IASB that it add a narrow-scope project to its standard-setting agenda to clarify
the meaning of the term ‘unavoidable costs’ within the IAS 37 definition of an onerous
contract.128 At its July 2018 meeting, the IASB agreed to propose amendments (relating
to the assessment of whether a contract is onerous) to specify that the ‘cost of fulfilling’
a contract in paragraph 68 of IAS 37 comprises the ‘costs that relate directly to the
contract’ (i.e. the incremental costs of fulfilling the contract and an allocation of other
costs that relate directly to the contract). At the time of writing, the IASB expected to
release an Exposure Draft in the fourth quarter of 2018.
2258 Chapter 28
Under US GAAP, while requirements exist for some industries or for certain types of
transactions, there is no general authoritative standard for when to recognise losses on
onerous contracts and, if a loss is to be recognised, how to measure the loss.
Accordingly, there is diversity in practice when such contracts are not within the scope
of specific authoritative literature. The FASB retained existing requirements for
situations in which an entity is expected to incur a loss on a contract (with certain
consequential amendments to reflect the terminology of, and cross-references to,
ASC 606, where appropriate).
In addition, the FASB clarified that the assessment is performed at the contract level,
but that an entity can perform it at the performance obligation level as an accounting
policy election. As the FASB’s requirements on onerous contracts are not the same as
those in IAS 37, the accounting treatment in this area is not converged.
10.2.1
Implementation questions on onerous contracts
10.2.1.A
Accounting for an onerous revenue contract when the contract includes
more than one performance obligation that is satisfied over time
consecutively
During development of IFRS 15, the IASB decided the revenue standard should not
include an onerous test. Instead, entities are required to use the existing
requirements
in IAS 37 to identify and measure onerous contracts. [IFRS 15.BC296].
Since the requirements for onerous contracts are outside the scope of IFRS 15, an
entity’s accounting for onerous contracts does not affect the accounting for its revenue
from contracts with customers in accordance with IFRS 15.
Therefore, entities must use an ‘overlay’ approach, which consists of two steps:
1. apply the requirements of IFRS 15 to measure progress in satisfying each
performance obligation over time and account for the related costs when incurred
in accordance with the applicable standards; and
2. at the end of each reporting period, apply IAS 37 to determine if the remaining
contract as a whole is onerous (i.e. considering whether the revenue still to be
recognised is less than the costs yet to be incurred). If an entity concludes that the
remaining contract is onerous, it recognises a provision only to the extent that the
amount of the unavoidable costs under the contract exceed the economic benefits
to be received under it.
Revenue
2259
The effect of the provision is recognised as an expense in profit or loss and not as an
adjustment to revenue. A change in the provision is recognised in profit or loss in
accordance with paragraph 59 of IAS 37.
Since the definition of an onerous contract in paragraph 10 of IAS 37 only refers to a
contract, the unit of account to determine whether an onerous contract exists is the
contract itself, rather than the performance obligations identified in accordance with
IFRS 15. As a result, the entity must consider the entire remaining contract, including
remaining revenue to be recognised for unsatisfied, or partially unsatisfied, performance
obligations and the remaining costs to fulfil those performance obligations.
10.3 Contract
costs
IFRS 15 specifies the accounting treatment for costs an entity incurs to obtain and fulfil
a contract to provide goods or services to customers. An entity only applies those
International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards Page 449
