This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

Accounting Roundup — April 2016

Published on: May 03, 2016

Download PDF 

Edited by Magnus Orrell, Jonathan Margate, and Joseph Renouf, Deloitte & Touche LLP

Welcome to the April 2016 edition of Accounting Roundup. Highlights of this issue include the following:

  • The FASB’s release of an ASU amending certain aspects of the guidance in ASU 2014-09 (the Board’s new revenue standard) on (1) identifying performance obligations and (2) licensing.
  • The IASB’s issuance of a final standard clarifying the guidance in IFRS 15 (the IASB’s counterpart revenue standard) on (1) identifying performance obligations, (2) principal-versus-agent considerations, and (3) licensing.
  • The inaugural meeting of the FASB’s credit losses TRG and the Board’s decision to issue a final standard on credit impairment.
  • The increased use and scrutiny of non-GAAP measures, including recent SEC comments on this topic.
  • The SEC’s release of a request for comment that seeks feedback on modernizing the business and financial disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K.

Be sure to monitor upcoming issues of Accounting Roundup for new developments. We value your feedback and would appreciate any comments you may have on this publication. Take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail at accountingstandards@deloitte.com.

Accounting — New Standards and Exposure Drafts

Revenue Recognition

FASB Clarifies Guidance on Licensing and Identifying Performance Obligations

Affects: All entities.

Summary: On April 14, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, which amends certain aspects of the guidance in ASU 2014-09 (the Board’s new revenue standard) on (1) identifying performance obligations and (2) licensing. The amendments include the following:

  • Identifying performance obligations:
    • Immaterial promised goods or services — Entities may disregard goods or services promised to a customer that are immaterial in the context of the contract.
    • Shipping and handling activities — Entities can elect to account for shipping or handling activities occurring after control has passed to the customer as a fulfillment cost rather than as a revenue element (i.e., a promised service in the contract).
    • Identifying when promises represent performance obligations — The new guidance refines the separation criteria for assessing whether promised goods and services are distinct, specifically the “separately identifiable” principle (the “distinct within the context of the contract” criterion) and supporting factors.
  • Licensing implementation guidance:
    • Determining the nature of an entity’s promise in granting a license — Intellectual property (IP) is classified as either functional or symbolic, and such classification should generally dictate whether, for a license granted to that IP, revenue must be recognized at a point in time or over time, respectively.
    • Sales-based and usage-based royalties — The sales-based and usage-based royalty exception applies whenever the royalty is predominantly related to a license of IP. The ASU therefore indicates that an “entity should not split a sales-based or usage-based royalty into a portion subject to the recognition guidance on sales-based and usage-based royalties and a portion that is not subject to that guidance.”
    • Restrictions of time, geographical location, and use — The ASU’s examples illustrate the distinction between restrictions that represent attributes of a license and provisions that specify that additional licenses have been provided.
    • Renewals of licenses that provide a right to use IP — Revenue should not be recognized for renewals or extensions of licenses to use IP until the renewal period begins.

The amendments reflect feedback received by the FASB-IASB joint revenue recognition transition resource group (TRG), which was formed to address potential issues associated with the implementation of the new revenue standard, as well as comments received from stakeholders on the FASB’s proposed guidance.

Editor’s Note: The IASB has also issued clarifications to its counterpart revenue standard, IFRS 15, that address (1) identifying performance obligations, (2) principal-versus-agent considerations, and (3) licensing. For more information, see the “IASB Publishes Clarifications to IFRS 15” article below.

Next Steps: The ASU’s effective date and transition provisions are aligned with the requirements in the FASB’s new revenue standard, ASU 2014-09, which is not yet effective. For more information about these requirements, see Deloitte’s May 28, 2014, Heads Up.

Other Resources: Deloitte’s April 15, 2016, Heads Up.

Statement of Cash Flows

FASB Proposes Guidance on Restricted Cash

Affects: All entities.

Summary: On April 28, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU on restricted cash in response to an EITF consensus-for-exposure. The proposed ASU would require an entity to include in its cash and cash-equivalent balances in the statement of cash flows those amounts that are deemed to be restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents. The proposal’s primary purpose is to eliminate the diversity in practice related to how entities classify and present changes in restricted cash in the cash flow statement in accordance with ASC 230.

Next Steps: Comments on the proposed ASU are due by June 27, 2016.

Other Resources: Deloitte’s March 2016 EITF Snapshot.

Technical Corrections

FASB Proposes Technical Corrections and Improvements to the Codification

Affects: All entities.

Summary: On April 21, 2016, the FASB issued a proposed ASU that would make certain technical corrections (i.e., minor changes, simplifications, and other enhancements) to the FASB Accounting Standards Codification. The technical corrections are divided into four main categories:

  1. Amendments to align Codification wording with that in pre-Codification standards.
  2. Corrections to references and clarification of guidance to avoid misapplication and misinterpretation.
  3. Minor edits to simplify the Codification and thereby improve its usefulness.
  4. Minor enhancements to Codification guidance that are not expected to have a significant effect on current practice.

Accounting topics that would be affected by the proposed amendments include insurance, troubled debt restructurings, fair value measurement, and transfers and servicing.

Next Steps: Comments on the proposed ASU are due by July 5, 2016.

International

IASB Publishes Clarifications to IFRS 15

Affects: Entities reporting under IFRSs.

Summary: On April 12, 2016, the IASB published final clarifications to its revenue standard, IFRS 15, which address (1) identifying performance obligations, (2) principal-versus-agent considerations, and (3) licensing. The amendments also provide some transition relief for modified contracts and completed contracts. Specific provisions of the amendments include the following:

  • Identifying performance obligations — Clarification that the objective of the assessment of a promise to transfer goods or services to a customer is to determine whether the nature of the promise, within the context of the contract, is to transfer each of those goods or services individually or, instead, to transfer a combined item or items to which the promised goods or services are inputs.
  • Principal-versus-agent considerations — Extension of the application guidance.
  • Licensing — Clarification of whether an entity’s promise to grant a license of its IP should be recognized as revenue at a point in time or over time on the basis of whether the licensor’s ongoing activities significantly affect the IP.
  • Transition relief — Two additional (optional) practical expedients.

Editor’s Note: The FASB decided to publish more extensive amendments to its counterpart revenue standard, ASU 2014-09. Final amendments to the application guidance on principal-versus-agent considerations were published in March 2016 (ASU 2016-08), and an ASU on identifying performance obligations and licensing was issued in April 2016 (ASU 2016-10). Further, the FASB expects to publish a final standard on other narrow scope amendments and practical expedients in the second quarter of 2016.

Next Steps: The amendments are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018, which is the same effective date as that of IFRS 15. Earlier application is permitted.

Other Resources: Deloitte’s April 20, 2016, IFRS in Focus. Also see the press release and interview with Ian Mackintosh on the IASB’s Web site.

Accounting — Other Key Developments

Credit Losses

Credit Losses TRG Holds Inaugural Meeting; FASB Decides to Issue Final Standard on Credit Impairment

Affects: All entities.

Summary: On April 1, 2016, the credit losses TRG held its first public meeting with the FASB. At the meeting, the TRG and Board discussed various aspects of the draft measurement guidance from the upcoming standard — which will be codified in ASC 326-20 — to ensure that the guidance is understandable and operational and reflects the Board’s decisions to date. The discussion included the TRG’s observations on how an entity would estimate expected credit losses on loans, specifically with respect to the draft measurement guidance stating that an entity:

  • May use various methods to determine its expectation of credit losses.
  • “[W]ill not be required to forecast conditions over the entire life of a financial asset.”
  • “[H]as flexibility to determine the historical loss information to which it would revert and the method of reversion.”
  • “[S]hould incorporate information [into] its expectations of credit losses that [is] relevant to the entity and accessible without undue cost or effort”; external information that is “less relevant than an entity’s own internal information” would be excluded.

The TRG agreed that these concepts from the draft measurement guidance are clear.

Editor’s Note: The purpose of the credit losses TRG is similar to that of the TRG that the FASB and IASB established to discuss their joint revenue recognition standard. That is, it does not issue guidance but provides feedback on potential implementation issues associated with the FASB’s upcoming standard on accounting for credit losses. By analyzing and discussing such issues, the TRG helps the Board determine whether it needs to take additional action, such as providing clarification or issuing other guidance. The credit losses TRG comprises financial statement preparers, auditors, users, and financial services regulators. FASB members attend the TRG’s meetings. In addition, representatives from the SEC, PCAOB, Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA are invited to observe the meetings.

Further, at its April 27, 2016, meeting, the FASB discussed its credit impairment project and the progress of the credit losses TRG. The Board authorized the staff to draft a final standard and made tentative decisions related to (1) credit quality disclosures, (2) the effective date of the final standard and whether to permit early adoption, and (3) the costs and benefits of the final standard.

Next Steps: For public business entities that meet the definition of an SEC filer in U.S. GAAP, the final standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For public business entities that do not meet the definition of an SEC filer in U.S. GAAP, the final standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For all other entities, the final standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2021. In addition, the Board decided that an entity will be permitted to early adopt the final standard for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years.

Other Resources: Deloitte’s April 2016 TRG Snapshot and April 27, 2016, journal entry.

Non-GAAP Measures

Top 10 Questions to Ask When Using a Non-GAAP Measure

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: Recently, press coverage and SEC scrutiny of non-GAAP measures have exploded. The intense focus on these measures results from their increased use and prominence, the nature of the adjustments, and the progressively large difference between the amounts reported for GAAP measures and those reported for non-GAAP measures. For example, a study published by FactSet determined that for 2015, 67 percent of the companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average reported non-GAAP earnings per share and, on average, that the difference between the GAAP and non-GAAP earnings per share for these companies was approximately 30 percent, representing a significant increase from approximately 12 percent in 2014.

SEC officials have commented on this sharp rise in the use of non-GAAP measures. In a recent speech, SEC Chief Accountant James Schnurr noted that the “SEC staff has observed a significant and, in some respects, troubling increase . . . in the use of, and nature of adjustments within, non-GAAP measures” as well as their prominence. He further noted that non-GAAP measures are intended to “supplement . . . not supplant” the information in the financial statements. His remarks build on recent comments by SEC Chair Mary Jo White at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2016 Capital Markets Summit, where she indicated that the use of non-GAAP measures is “something we are really looking at — whether we need to actually rein that in a bit even by regulation.”

The rise in the number of comments issued to companies as part of the review process by the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (the “Division”) corresponds to the increase in the use of non-GAAP measures. The Division’s recent comment letters have particularly focused on the use of non-GAAP measures in press releases. In many instances, the Division has asked companies to make sure that non-GAAP measures are not more prominent than GAAP measures. See Deloitte’s SEC Comment Letters — Including Industry Insights: What “Edgar” Told Us for a more detailed discussion of trends identified in the SEC staff’s comment letters on non-GAAP measures.

Editor’s Note: While such instances have been infrequent, the SEC has objected to the use of non-GAAP measures when they are potentially misleading. For example, in one comment letter, the SEC objected to a non-GAAP measure that excluded certain marketing expenses that were considered normal recurring operating cash expenditures.

Other Resources: Deloitte’s April 7, 2016, Heads Up.

Revenue Recognition

First FASB-Only Revenue Recognition TRG Meeting Held

Affects: All entities.

Summary: On April 18, 2016, the TRG for revenue recognition, which was created by the FASB and IASB to address potential issues related to the implementation of the boards’ new revenue standard, held its first FASB-only session. Topics discussed at the meeting included:

  • Scope considerations related to incentive-based capital allocations, such as carried interests.
  • Considering the class of customer in the evaluation of whether a customer option gives rise to a material right.
  • Scope considerations for financial institutions.
  • Evaluating how control is transferred over time.
  • Treatment of contract assets in contract modifications.

Editor’s Note: On January 21, 2016, the IASB announced that it has completed its decision-making process related to clarifying the new revenue standard and that it no longer plans to schedule TRG meetings for IFRS constituents. Therefore, TRG meetings will now be FASB-only; however, IASB staff members may participate as observers.

Next Steps: The revenue recognition TRG’s next meeting is scheduled for July 25, 2016.

Other Resources: Deloitte’s April 2016 TRG Snapshot.

SASB

SASB Issues Three Documents for Comment

Affects: All entities.

Summary: On April 7, 2016, the SASB issued the following three EDs for public comment as part of the second phase of its standards development:

  • Rules of Procedure — This proposal would “establish the processes, practices, and procedures related to SASB’s standard-setting activities.” Such activities would include “development activities, ongoing consultation with corporate issuers and investors, and codification and ongoing maintenance of the Standards.”
  • Conceptual Framework — This ED would amend the SASB’s existing conceptual framework “in accordance with the Rules of Procedure to focus on the fundamental principles that guide SASB’s work [and] outlines SASB’s purpose and role in the broader sustainability, accounting, and financial reporting arenas.”
  • Sustainable Industry Classification SystemTM — This proposal requests feedback on a few amendments that would be in line with the SASB’s “purpose of grouping related industries based on the similarities of their sustainability profiles and shared sustainability risks and opportunities.”

Next Steps: Comments on all three EDs are due by July 6, 2016.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release.

Auditing Developments

AICPA

AICPA Clarifies and Recodifies Attestation Standards

Affects: Auditors that perform and report on examination, review, and agreed-upon procedures engagements.

Summary: In April 2016, the ASB of the AICPA issued SSAE 18, which marks the completion of the AICPA’s project to redraft its attestation standards in a manner consistent with its clarity drafting conventions. As part of the redrafting process, the current “AT” sections have been recodified as “AT-C” sections to indicate that they have been clarified and to distinguish them from superseded sections. Improvements to the new sections include:

  • Creating an objective for each AT-C section.
  • Incorporating a definitions section into each AT-C section as appropriate.
  • Differentiating “requirements from application and other explanatory material.”
  • Using an “A- prefix” to number “application and other explanatory material paragraphs . . . and presenting them in a separate section that follows the requirements section.”
  • Improving readability through the use of formatting techniques (e.g., bulleted lists).
  • When relevant, including special considerations related to (1) “audits of smaller, less complex entities” and (2) “examination, review, or agreed-upon procedures engagements for governmental entities.”

PCAOB

PCAOB Issues Practice Alert on Audit Document Alterations

Affects: Auditors.

Summary: On April 21, 2016, the PCAOB issued a staff audit practice alert that reminds auditors of serious disciplinary actions that can result from the improper alteration of audit documentation in connection with a PCAOB inspection or investigation. The alert notes that “[c]hanges and additions to audit documentation, if any, following the documentation completion date must be made strictly in accordance with AS 1215.”

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release and Enforcement Spotlight on the PCAOB’s Web site.

PCAOB Issues Staff Inspection Briefs

Affects: Auditors.

Summary: On April 19, 2016, the PCAOB issued the following two staff inspection briefs:

  • Preview of Observations From 2015 Inspections of Auditors of Issuers — Notes that fewer audit deficiencies were identified in 2015 than in the previous year. The most frequent audit deficiencies involved (1) auditing internal control over financial reporting; (2) assessing and responding to risks of material misstatement; and (3) auditing accounting estimates, including fair value measurements.
  • Preview of Observations From 2015 Inspections of Auditors of Brokers and Dealers — Indicates that there were “fewer independence impairments of auditors of broker-dealers [in 2015] than in prior years.” However, deficiencies were observed in the following areas: (1) auditor independence; (2) financial statement audit procedures; (3) audit procedures on the supplemental schedules to the financial statements; (4) the examination of compliance reports and the review of exemption reports under newly applicable PCAOB standards; and (5) engagement quality review.

Other Resources: For more information, see the issuer and broker-dealer inspection brief press releases on the PCAOB’s Web site.

PCAOB Issues Proposal on Audits Involving Other Auditors

Affects: Auditors.

Summary: On April 12, 2016, the PCAOB issued a proposal for public comment that would “amend its auditing standards to strengthen the requirements that apply to audits that involve accounting firms and individual accountants outside the accounting firm that issues the audit report.” The enhancements “are intended to increase the lead auditor’s involvement in and evaluation of the work of other auditors, enhance the ability of the lead auditor to prevent or detect deficiencies in the work of other auditors, and facilitate improvements in the quality of the work of other auditors.”

Next Steps: Comments on the proposal are due by July 29, 2016.

Other Resources: For more information, see Deloitte’s April 29, 2016, Audit & Assurance Update as well as the press release and fact sheet on the PCAOB’s Web site.

PCAOB Requests Comments on Engagement Quality Review Standard as Part of New Post-Implementation Review Program

Affects: Auditors that perform engagement quality reviews.

Summary: On April 6, 2016, the PCAOB issued a request for comment on the overall effect of Auditing Standard 7 (on engagement quality review) as part of its new post-implementation review (PIR) program. Topics on which the request for comment is seeking feedback include:

  • Whether Auditing Standard 7 has achieved its objective.
  • The standard’s effect on “the credibility of financial reporting.”
  • The experiences of preparers, auditors, and audit committees with implementing the standard, including the costs and benefits of implementation.
  • Whether the standard could be enhanced and, if so, how.

The purpose of the new PIR program is “to evaluate whether adopted rules and standards are accomplishing their intended purposes, and identify any unintended consequences, as well as gauge the overall effects of the rules or standards.”

Next Steps: Comments are due by July 5, 2016.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release and PIR page on the PCAOB’s Web site.

Governmental Accounting and Auditing Developments

FASAB

FASAB Issues Statement on Disclosure Requirements Related to Public-Private Partnerships

Affects: Entities applying federal financial accounting standards.

Summary: On April 27, 2016, the FASAB issued Statement 49, which “establishes principles” for disclosing information about public-private partnerships in a reporting entity’s general-purpose federal financial reports. In addition to providing a definition of these partnerships, the Statement identifies “risk-based characteristics that need to exist before considering the [public-private partnership] arrangement or transaction for disclosure.”

Next Steps: Statement 49 is effective for periods beginning after September 30, 2018. Early adoption is permitted.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the FASAB’s Web site.

GASB

GASB Issues Guidance on Pension Issues

Affects: Entities reporting under financial accounting and reporting standards for state and local governments.

Summary: On April 11, 2016, the GASB issued Statement 82, which addresses implementation issues related to certain aspects of the GASB’s pension standards, including:

  • Presenting “payroll-related measures in required supplementary information.”
  • Selecting “assumptions and the treatment of deviations from guidance in Actuarial Standards of Practice for financial reporting purposes.”
  • Classifying “payments made by employers to satisfy plan member contribution requirements.”

Next Steps: Statement 82 is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2016. Early application is encouraged.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the GASB’s Web site.

International

IPSASB Removes Definition of Government Business Enterprise From IPSASs

Affects: Public-sector entities.

Summary: On April 21, 2016, the IPSASB issued a final pronouncement that eliminates the definition of government business enterprise (GBE) from IPSAS 1 and makes other related revisions to its IPSASs and RPGs. The amendments are being made in response to feedback indicating that the current GBE definition is overly ambiguous and difficult to interpret. The IPSASB has also revised the IPSAS preface to reflect these changes.

The amendments are effective as of December 31, 2015.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on IFAC’s Web site.

IPSASB Publishes Improvements to IPSAS 2015

Affects: Public-sector entities.

Summary: On April 19, 2016, the IPSASB published Improvements to IPSAS 2015, which contains various amendments to IPSASs. The amendments can be divided into four categories:

  • Consequential amendments related to chapters 1–4 of the conceptual framework.
  • General IPSAS enhancements.
  • Alignments with government finance statistics.
  • Revisions to reflect changes related to the IASB’s projects on annual improvements and narrow scope amendments.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on IFAC’s Web site.

Regulatory and Compliance Developments

SEC

SEC Staff Publishes C&DI on Form ABS-EE Filing

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: On April 28, 2016, the staff in the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance updated its C&DI related to Regulation AB to include guidance on filing asset-level disclosures on Form ABS-EE.

SEC Proposes National Market System Plan to Create a Consolidated Audit Trail

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: On April 27, 2016, the SEC issued for public comment a national market system (NMS) plan under which a consolidated audit trail (CAT) and other related data would be created, implemented, and maintained. The NMS plan describes how self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers “would record and report information, including the identity of the customer, resulting in a range of data elements that together provide the complete lifecycle of all orders and transactions in the U.S. equity and options markets.”

In her statement regarding the plan, SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated that the CAT “will generate enormous benefits for the SEC’s mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation.”

Next Steps: Comments on the proposed plan are due 60 days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the SEC’s Web site.

SEC Updates EDGAR Filer Manual and Technical Specifications

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: On April 27, 2016, the SEC issued a final rule that updates its EDGAR System Filer Manual (Volume II) to include new submission forms related to the registration of security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants. In addition, the SEC has implemented XML technical specifications related to ABS asset data file types, Form 17-H, and SBS entity forms.

Other Resources: For more information, see the EDGAR page on the SEC’s Web site.

SEC Announces Tool for Estimating Registration Fees

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: On April 18, 2016, the SEC announced the launch of a new online tool to help companies calculate registration fees for certain form submissions to its EDGAR System Filer Manual. The tool is “intended to improve the accuracy of fee calculations and minimize the need for corrections.” It covers the most common filings companies use to register initial public offerings, debt offerings, asset-backed securities, closed-end mutual funds, limited partnerships, and small business investment companies.

Other Resources: For more information, see the press release on the SEC’s Web site.

SEC Publishes Final Rules on Security-Based Swaps

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: On April 14, 2016, the SEC issued final rules on security-based swaps that “implement provisions of Title VII relating to business conduct standards and the designation of a chief compliance officer for security-based swap [SBS] dealers and major [SBS] participants.” In addition, the rules address “the cross-border application of the rules and the availability of substituted compliance.” The final rules include:

  • Rule 15Fh-1 — Defines the scope of the rules.
  • Rule 15Fh-2 — Defines terms used throughout the rules.
  • Rule 15Fh-3 — Addresses the business conduct requirements applicable to SBS entities.
  • Rule 15Fh-4 — Outlines unlawful activities for SBS entities and contains requirements for SBS dealers that advise special entities.
  • Rule 15Fh-5 — Provides requirements for SBS entities that act as counterparties to special entities.
  • Rule 15Fh-6 — Imposes pay-to-play restrictions on SBS dealers.
  • Rule 15k-1 — Outlines requirements for chief compliance officers.

Next Steps: The final rules will become effective on June 27, 2016.

Other Resources: For more information, see the speech by SEC Chair Mary Jo White on the SEC’s Web site.

SEC Requests Comments on Regulation S-K

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: On April 13, 2016, the SEC issued a concept release that seeks feedback from constituents on modernizing certain business and financial disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K. The main requirements of Regulation S-K, which is the central repository for nonfinancial statement disclosure requirements for public companies, were established more than 30 years ago, and the modernization and optimization of these requirements may be called for as a result of evolving business models, new technology, and changing investor interests.

The release is part of the SEC’s ongoing disclosure effectiveness initiative, which is a broad-based review of the Commission’s disclosure, presentation, and delivery requirements for public companies. It follows the SEC’s issuance last fall of a request for comment that sought feedback on the effectiveness of financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-X that apply to certain entities other than the registrant.

Next Steps: Comments on the concept release are due by July 21, 2016.

Other Resources: Deloitte’s April 18, 2016, Heads Up.

SEC Seeks Comments on PCAOB Rule on Inspections

Affects: SEC registrants.

Summary: On April 7, 2016, the SEC issued a notice to solicit public comments on the PCAOB’s proposed amendments to Rule 4003 on frequency of inspections. The amendments would (1) eliminate triennial inspections of firms that play a substantial role in audits but do not issue audit reports and (2) eliminate references to “substantial role only” firms and modify other definitions.

Next Steps: Comments are due by May 4, 2016.

Dbriefs for Financial Executives

We invite you to participate in Dbriefs, Deloitte’s webcast series that provides valuable insights on important developments affecting your business. Gain access to innovative ideas and critical information during these webcasts.

Dbriefs also provides a convenient and flexible way to earn CPE credit — right at your desk. Join Dbriefs to receive notifications about future webcasts.

For more information, please see our complete Dbriefs program guide or click a link below for more information about any of these upcoming Dbriefs webcasts (all webcasts begin at 2:00 p.m. (EDT) unless otherwise noted):

Don’t miss out — register for these webcasts today.

Deloitte Publications

Publication Title Affects
April 29, 2016, Audit & Assurance Update PCAOB Issues Proposal for Audits Involving Other Auditors Auditors.
April 21, 2016, Heads Up FASB Simplifies the Accounting for Share-Based Payments All entities.
April 18, 2016, Heads Up SEC Concept Release Seeks Comments on Regulation S-K SEC registrants.
April 15, 2016, Heads Up FASB Clarifies Guidance on Licensing and Identifying Performance Obligations All entities.
April 7, 2016, Heads Up Top 10 Questions to Ask When Using a Non-GAAP Measure SEC registrants.
April 2016 TRG Snapshot Meeting on Revenue: April 2016 All entities.
April 2016 TRG Snapshot Meeting on Credit Losses: April 2016 All entities.

Appendix A: Current Status of FASB Projects

Please see Appendix A in the attached PDF.

Appendix B: Significant Adoption Dates and Deadlines

Please see Appendix B in the attached PDF.

Appendix C: Glossary of Standards and Other Literature

Please see Appendix C in the attached PDF.

Appendix D: Abbreviations

Please see Appendix D in the attached PDF.

Download

Correction list for hyphenation

These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.