Leases-Navigating the guidance in ASC 842

Grant Thornton

May 2019

Leases

Navigating the guidance in

ASC 842

This publication was created for general information purposes, and does not constitute professional

advice on facts and circumstances specific to any person or entity. You should not act upon the

information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation

or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained

in this publication. Grant Thornton LLP (Grant Thornton) shall not be responsible for any loss sustained

by any person or entity that relies on the information contained in this publication. This publication is not a

substitute for human judgment and analysis, and it should not be relied upon to provide specific answers.

The conclusions reached on the examples included in this publication are based on the specific facts and

circumstances outlined. Entities with slightly different facts and circumstances may reach different

conclusions, based on considering all of the available information.

The content in this publication is based on information available as of May 1, 2019. We may update this

publication for evolving views as we continue to monitor the implementation process. For the latest

version, please visit grantthornton.com.

Portions of FASB Accounting Standards Codification® material included in this work are copyrighted by

the Financial Accounting Foundation, 401 Merritt 7, Norwalk, CT 06856, and are reproduced with

permission.


Contents 
        
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8 
 Definitions ..........................................................................................................................10 
1  Commencement date ............................................................................................... 10 
2  Initial direct costs ..................................................................................................... 12 
3  ‘Reasonably certain’ threshold ................................................................................... 15 
4  Lease payments ...................................................................................................... 17 
4.1  Fixed and in-substance fixed payments ................................................................19 
4.2  Lease incentives ...............................................................................................22 
4.3  Variable payments ............................................................................................22 
4.4  Exercise price of an option to purchase the underlying asset ...................................27 
4.5  Lease termination penalties ................................................................................27 
4.6  Fees paid by the lessee to owners of a special-purpose entity .................................28 
4.7  Amounts probable of being owed under a residual value guarantee ..........................29 
5  Lease term ............................................................................................................. 31 
5.1  Noncancellable period .......................................................................................32 
5.2  Lessee option to extend or terminate a lease ........................................................33 
5.3  Fiscal funding clauses .......................................................................................35 
6  Economic life........................................................................................................... 36 
7  Guarantees and indemnifications ............................................................................... 36 
7.1  Indemnification payments...................................................................................36 
7.2  Tax indemnification ...........................................................................................37 
8  Discount rate........................................................................................................... 38 
8.1  Lessor discount rate ..........................................................................................39 
8.2  Lessee discount rate .........................................................................................40 
9  Fair value ............................................................................................................... 43 
9.1  Lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers .......................................................44 
10  Master lease agreements .......................................................................................... 45 
 Lease identification..............................................................................................................47 
1  Scope of leasing guidance ........................................................................................ 47 
1.1  Lease versus service contract .............................................................................48 
1.2  Service concession arrangements .......................................................................49 
1.3  Sales with repurchase rights ...............................................................................50 
2  Definition of a lease.................................................................................................. 52 
2.1  Period of time ...................................................................................................55 
2.2  Inception date versus commencement date ..........................................................56 
3  Identified asset ........................................................................................................ 57 
3.1  Substitution rights .............................................................................................58 
3.2  Portions of assets .............................................................................................64 
3.3  Physically distinct..............................................................................................65 
4  Right to control the use of the identified asset............................................................... 68 
4.1  Right to receive economic benefits ......................................................................68 
4.2  Right to direct the use........................................................................................71 
4.3  Right to direct the use of assets that the customer can neither access nor possess.....77 
4.4  Assets used to obtain or use a good or service ......................................................81 
 Components.......................................................................................................................84 
1  Identifying lease and nonlease components ................................................................. 84 
1.1  Lease components............................................................................................84 


1.2  Nonlease components .......................................................................................89 
1.3  Activities and payments that do not represent separate components.........................92 
1.4  Obligations to pay lessor taxes and insurance premiums ........................................95 
1.5  Lessee practical expedient .................................................................................95 
1.6  Lessor practical expedient ..................................................................................97 
1.7  Contract combinations ..................................................................................... 103 
2  Lessee measurement, allocation, and subsequent measurement of consideration ........... 104 
2.1  Lessee measurement ...................................................................................... 104 
2.2  Lessee initial allocation .................................................................................... 106 
2.3  Lessee subsequent measurement and allocation ................................................. 107 
3  Lessor measurement, allocation, and subsequent measurement of consideration ............ 108 
3.1  Lessor measurement ....................................................................................... 108 
3.2  Lessor initial allocation..................................................................................... 114 
3.3  Lessor subsequent measurement and allocation.................................................. 121 
 Lease classification ........................................................................................................... 123 
1  Classification criteria – lessee and lessor................................................................... 125 
1.1  Criterion 1: Transfer of ownership ...................................................................... 126 
1.2  Criterion 2: Option to purchase.......................................................................... 127 
1.3  Criterion 3: Lease term .................................................................................... 127 
1.4  Criterion 4: Present value of lease payments and guaranteed residual value............ 129 
1.5  Criterion 5: No alternative use ........................................................................... 130 
2  Additional lessor classification criteria ....................................................................... 132 
2.1  Present value of lease payments and guaranteed residual value ............................ 134 
2.2  Collectibility.................................................................................................... 134 
3
  Other classification matters ..................................................................................... 137 
3.1  Reassessment of lease classification ................................................................. 137 
3.2  Related-party lease classification ...................................................................... 137 
3.3  Lessee indemnification for environmental contamination ....................................... 139 
3.4  Leases involving facilities owned by a government unit or authority ........................ 139 
3.5  Leases acquired in a business combination ........................................................ 141 
 Lessee accounting ............................................................................................................ 142 
1  General ................................................................................................................ 142 
1.1  Short-term leases ........................................................................................... 142 
2  Initial measurement ................................................................................................ 145 
2.1  Initial measurement of the lease liability.............................................................. 145 
2.2  Initial measurement of the right-of-use asset ....................................................... 146 
3  Finance lease subsequent measurement................................................................... 148 
3.1  Finance lease expense recognition .................................................................... 149 
4  Operating lease subsequent measurement ................................................................ 150 
4.1  Operating lease expense recognition ................................................................. 152 
4.2  Lease incentives neither paid nor payable at commencement ................................ 155 
5  Amortization of leasehold improvements.................................................................... 157 
6  Lessee costs to place the underlying asset in service .................................................. 157 
7  Impairment of the right-of-use asset .......................................................................... 157 
7.1  Post-impairment asset amortization – operating lease .......................................... 160 
7.2  Post-impairment asset amortization – finance lease ............................................. 160 
7.3  Example of impairment of a right-of-use asset ..................................................... 161 
7.4  Lessee decision to abandon right-of-use asset .................................................... 162 
8  Lease modification ................................................................................................. 162 
8.1  Modification accounted for as a separate contract ................................................ 163 


8.2  Modification accounted for as a continuation of the existing contract ....................... 164 
8.3  Lease modification in connection with refunding of tax-exempt debt........................ 174 
9  Remeasurement of the lease ................................................................................... 174 
9.1  Reassessment of lease term or option to purchase .............................................. 177 
9.2  Recognizing the remeasurement ....................................................................... 182 
10  Lease termination .................................................................................................. 183 
11  Leases denominated in a foreign currency ................................................................. 184 
11.1  Translation of periodic lease cost ...................................................................... 184 
11.2  Modification or remeasurement of a foreign-currency-denominated lease ................ 186 
12  Maintenance deposits............................................................................................. 187 
 Lessor accounting ............................................................................................................. 190 
1  Sales-type leases .................................................................................................. 191 
1.1  Initial recognition and measurement................................................................... 191 
1.2  Subsequent recognition and measurement ......................................................... 194 
1.3  Sales-type leases with significant variable payments ............................................ 197 
1.4  Derecognition ................................................................................................. 198 
1.5  Sales-type lease example ................................................................................ 198 
2  Direct financing leases............................................................................................ 200 
2.1  Initial recognition and measurement................................................................... 200 
2.2  Subsequent recognition and measurement ......................................................... 202 
2.3  Derecognition ................................................................................................. 204 
2.4  Direct financing lease example.......................................................................... 204 
3  Operating leases ................................................................................................... 207 
3.1  Initial recognition and measurement................................................................... 207 
3.2  Subsequent recognition and measurement ......................................................... 207 
4  Collectibility........................................................................................................... 209 
4.1  Sales-type leases and collectibility..................................................................... 210 
4.2  Direct financing leases and collectibility .............................................................. 213 
4.3  Operating leases and collectibility...................................................................... 213 
5  Lessor costs to fulfil lease obligations........................................................................ 215 
6  Sale of the lease receivable..................................................................................... 216 
7  Sales of equipment with guaranteed minimum resale amount ....................................... 216 
7.1  Guarantee payment......................................................................................... 217 
7.2  Repurchase right ............................................................................................ 217 
7.3  Contract with repurchase rights classified as an operating lease ............................ 218 
7.4  Customer’s exercise of residual value guarantee ................................................. 219 
7.5  Minimum resale value guarantees not in scope of derivative or guarantee guidance.. 219 
8  Indemnification payments related to tax effects........................................................... 222 
9  Impairment of the net investment in the lease ............................................................. 223 
10  Modifications ......................................................................................................... 223 
10.1  Modification of a sales-type lease ...................................................................... 225 
10.2  Modification of a direct financing lease ............................................................... 228 
10.3  Modification of an operating lease ..................................................................... 231 
11  Terminations ......................................................................................................... 234 
 Sale-leaseback accounting ................................................................................................. 236 
1  Determining if a transaction is within the scope of sale-leaseback guidance .................... 236 
1.1  Lessee controls the underlying asset before the lease commencement date ............ 237 
1.2  Lessee incurs construction or design costs before lease commencement ................ 238 
1.3  Lessee indemnification for environmental contamination ....................................... 244 
1.4  Sale subject to a preexisting lease..................................................................... 244 


2  Determining whether the transfer of an asset is a sale ................................................. 245 
2.1  Repurchase option .......................................................................................... 247 
2.2  Seller-lessee guarantee of the residual value ...................................................... 248 
2.3  Transfer of tax benefits .................................................................................... 249 
3  Accounting for a transfer of assets that is a sale ......................................................... 250 
3.1  Determining the transaction price ...................................................................... 251 
3.2  Determining if the sale and leaseback is at fair value ............................................ 251 
4  Accounting for a transfer of assets that is not a sale .................................................... 255 
4.1  Accounting by a seller-lessee reasonably certain to exercise a repurchase option..... 258 
4.2  Failed sale-leaseback subsequently meets the sale-leaseback criteria .................... 259 
5  Sale-leaseback-sublease transactions ...................................................................... 262 
 Leveraged leases.............................................................................................................. 264 
1  Overview .............................................................................................................. 264 
2  Guidance.............................................................................................................. 266 
 Subleases ........................................................................................................................ 267 
1  Sublease .............................................................................................................. 267 
2  Sublease classification............................................................................................ 267 
3  Sublessor’s initial and subsequent measurement of a sublease .................................... 268 
3.1  Sublease of a portion of a leased asset .............................................................. 269 
3.2  Sublessor discount rate ................................................................................... 270 
3.3  Sublessor derecognition................................................................................... 271 
4  Original lessor’s accounting for a sublease ................................................................ 271 
5  Sublessee............................................................................................................. 272 
 Presentation and disclosure ................................................................................................ 273 
1
  Lessee presentation ............................................................................................... 273 
1.1  Statement of financial position .......................................................................... 273 
1.2  Statement of comprehensive income ................................................................. 274 
1.3  Statement of cash flows ................................................................................... 275 
2  Lessor presentation................................................................................................ 276 
2.1  Statement of financial position .......................................................................... 276 
2.2  Statement of comprehensive income ................................................................. 277 
2.3  Statement of cash flows ................................................................................... 279 
3  Overall disclosures................................................................................................. 280 
3.1  Lessee disclosures.......................................................................................... 281 
3.2  Lessor disclosures .......................................................................................... 288 
4  Sale and leaseback transactions .............................................................................. 293 
5  Leveraged leases .................................................................................................. 294 
 Transition......................................................................................................................... 296 
1  Effective date ........................................................................................................ 296 
1.1  SEC staff announcement on the definition of ‘public business entity’ ....................... 297 
1.2  Early adoption ................................................................................................ 299 
2  Transition methods................................................................................................. 301 
2.1  Modified retrospective method .......................................................................... 302 
2.2  Current period adjustment method..................................................................... 304 
2.3  Transition for short-tem leases .......................................................................... 304 
3  Practical expedients ............................................................................................... 305 
3.1  Package of practical expedients ........................................................................ 305 
3.2  Hindsight practical expedient ............................................................................ 306 
3.3  Land easement practical expedient.................................................................... 308 
3.4  Combining lease and nonlease components in transition ...................................... 309 

Introduction 7

11.4 Amounts previously recognized in business combinations ............................................ 309

11.5

Disclosures ........................................................................................................... 310

11.5.1 Prior-period disclosures under the current-period adjustment transition method ........ 311

11.5.2 Disclosure of election of practical expedients ...................................................... 312

11.5.3 SEC reporting and transition ............................................................................. 312

11.6 Lessee transition ................................................................................................... 313

11.6.1 Leases classified as operating leases under legacy GAAP .................................... 314

11.6.2 Operating lease impairment model .................................................................... 317

11.6.3 Lessee transition example ................................................................................ 317

11.6.4 Foreign-currency-denominated leases in transition............................................... 320

11.6.5 Leases classified as capital leases under legacy GAAP ........................................ 325

11.6.6 Lessee modifications in transition ...................................................................... 328

11.6.7 Build-to-suit arrangements ............................................................................... 329

11.7 Lessor transition .................................................................................................... 331

11.7.1 Leases classified as operating leases under legacy GAAP .................................... 332

11.7.2 Leases classified as sales-type or direct financing leases under legacy GAAP ......... 334

11.7.3 Leases classified as leveraged leases under legacy GAAP ................................... 336

11.8 Transition for sale-leaseback transactions ................................................................. 337

Appendix A: Determining the incremental borrowing rate .............................................................. 340

Introduction

On February 25, 2016, the FASB released ASU 2016-02, Leases, completing its long-term project to

overhaul lease accounting. The ASU codifies ASC 842, Leases, which replaces the guidance in ASC 840

Leases. ASC 842 is effective for public business entities in fiscal years beginning after December 15,

2018. The effective date for most other entities is deferred for one year, meaning that most calendar-year

private companies will be required to adopt the new standard in 2020. Early adoption is permitted for all

entities.

The guidance in ASC 842 should generally be applied as follows:

 Determine whether a contract is or contains a lease: A lease conveys the right to control the use

of identified property, plant, or equipment for a period of time in exchange for consideration.

 Identify the lease and nonlease components in the contract, and allocate consideration to

them: Lease components are accounted for under ASC 842, and nonlease components are

accounted for under other relevant U.S. GAAP. Both lessees and lessors are permitted to combine

qualifying lease and nonlease components.

 Classify the lease component(s): Lessees must classify leases as either finance or operating

leases, and lessors must classify leases as sales-type, direct financing, or operating leases.

 Measure and recognize the lease component(s): Lessees must recognize an asset and liability on

the statement of financial position for most leases, measured primarily based on the present value of

the remaining lease payments. Lessors must recognize a net investment in the lease, and

derecognize the underlying asset, for sales-type and direct financing leases. For operating leases,

lessors retain the underlying asset on the statement of financial position.

 Recognize lease expense or lease income over the lease term: Lessors and lessees must

generally recognize lease income or expense for operating leases on a straight-line basis over the

lease term. For finance leases, lessees must recognize interest expense based on the effective

interest method and amortization expense generally on a straight-line basis (the same way that

capital leases are accounted for under legacy GAAP) over the lease term. Lessors must recognize

up-front selling profit or loss on sales-type leases and interest income on the net investment in the

lease over the lease term for both sales-type and direct financing leases.

ASC 842 also addresses entities’ accounting for subleases, sale-leaseback transactions, and

arrangements in which the lessee is involved in constructing the underlying asset.

Entities have two choices for transition – a modified retrospective method, which requires application of

ASC 842 as of the beginning of the earliest period presented, or an alternative “current-period

adjustment” method, which requires application of ASC 842 as of the effective date.

Since ASU 2016-02 was issued, the FASB has issued the following ASUs to clarify and amend the

guidance in ASC 842, all of which are reflected in this guide:

• ASU 2018-01, Leases (Topic 842): Land Easement Practical Expedient for Transition to Topic 842

• ASU 2018-10, Codification Improvements to Topic 842, Leases

Introduction 9

• ASU 2018-11, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements

• ASU 2018-20, Leases (Topic 842): Narrow-Scope Improvements for

Lessors

• ASU 2019-01, Leases (Topic 842): Codification Improvements

The remainder of this guide

 Summarizes the leasing guidance and examples

 Includes “Grant Thornton insights” on various topics

 Provides practical insights on how the guidance may differ from legacy GAAP (“At the crossroads”)

 Includes illustrative examples to demonstrate how to apply the guidance

Definitions 10

1. Definitions

There are many key terms and concepts referenced throughout ASC 842. These terms and concepts

apply to both lessees and lessors, and affect the classification, recognition, and measurement of leases.

These terms and concepts are discussed in this section, and are referenced throughout the other

sections of this publication.

1.1 Commencement date

The lease accounting model in ASC 842 is based on the concept of control. Lease accounting is triggered

when control over the right to direct the use of an underlying asset transfers from the lessor to the lessee.

This transfer of control occurs on the commencement date of the lease, which is the date when the lessor

makes the underlying asset available for the lessee to use. The commencement date can occur even if

the lessee has not begun to use the underlying asset at that date. For instance, although a leased railcar

might initially sit empty in the lessee’s rail yard, as long as the lessee controls the right to use the asset

(that is, the lessee can use the asset whenever it chooses), the lease has commenced and should be

accounted for by both parties.

Commencement Date of the Lease: The date on which a lessor makes an underlying asset available for

use by a lessee. See paragraphs 842-10-55-19 through 55-21 for implementation guidance on the

commencement date.

At the crossroads: Commencement date versus inception date

Under ASC 842, many measurement inputs related to the lease, such as the discount rate and the fair

value of the underlying asset, are determined at the lease commencement date, whereas under legacy

GAAP, these inputs are determined at lease inception. Lease inception is the date when the contract

containing the lease is executed, meaning that there is a signed document as evidence of the

agreement and all principal provisions have been negotiated. Under ASC 842, lease components are

identified at the commencement date of the lease, concurrently with determining the appropriate

classification for each lease component and with measuring and allocating the consideration in the

contract. These determinations are made based on the facts and circumstances as of the

commencement date, whereas under legacy GAAP, these determinations are made based on the facts

and circumstances as of the inception date of the lease.

Since there might be a significant difference between lease inception and lease commencement dates,

ASC 842 requires a lessee to disclose information about leases that create significant rights and

obligations if the inception date has already occurred but the lease has not yet commenced as of the

reporting date, to ensure that financial statement users have information about the company’s future

commitments.

Definitions 11

Lease with an inception date before and commencement date after year-end

Lessee and Lessor enter into an agreement to lease a building. The lease is signed on November 30,

20X1, and Lessor will make the underlying asset available for use by Lessee on February 1, 20X2.

Therefore, the commencement date will occur, and the lease will be measured and recorded, on

February 1, 20X2. The lease is not recognized on Lessee’s statement of financial position at December

31, 20X1. However, the lease inception date has occurred, and Lessee is required to disclose

information about the lease in the notes to its 20X1 financial statements, provided the lease creates

significant rights and obligations for Lessee.

In some situations, the lessor makes the underlying asset available to the lessee before the lessee either

begins using the asset or starts making lease payments. For example, a lessee leases space in an office

building and must install leasehold improvements in the leased office space before moving in, at which

point, it must begin making lease payments. In this situation, the lessee obtains the right to use the

underlying asset once it can access the space to begin constructing its leasehold improvements.

Therefore, the lease commences when the lessee gains access, regardless of when the lessee is

required to begin making lease payments.

Distinguishing lease inception and commencement dates

On January 1, Lessee executes a contract with Lessor for the right to use an office building for a period

of five years. However, Lessor must make repairs to the building before granting Lessee access,

including repairs to the building’s foundation. Once the repairs are completed on March 1, Lessee is

granted access to the building, at which time Lessee’s contractor can begin installing leasehold

improvements. In this example, the contract inception date is January 1, and the commencement date

of the lease is March 1.

Now, assume that Lessee is not required to begin making lease payments until its contractor finishes

constructing the leasehold improvements, which occurs on June 1. The commencement date of the

lease is still March 1, because that is when Lessor makes the asset available for use by Lessee,

regardless of whether Lessee’s obligation to make lease payments is deferred for some period of time.

As a result, Lessee must classify, measure, and record the lease on March 1.

ASC 842-10-55-19

In some lease arrangements, the lessor may make the underlying asset available for use by the lessee

(for example, the lessee may take possession of or be given control over the use of the underlying

asset) before it begins operations or makes lease payments under the terms of the lease. During this

period, the lessee has the right to use the underlying asset and does so for the purpose of constructing

a lessee asset (for example, leasehold improvements).

ASC 842-10-55-20

Definitions 12

The contract may require the lessee to make lease payments only after construction is completed and

the lessee begins operations. Alternatively, some contracts require the lessee to make lease payments

when it takes possession of or is given control over the use of the underlying asset. The timing of when

lease payments begin under the contract does not affect the commencement date of the lease.

For building and ground leases, ASC 842 makes no distinction between the right to use the underlying

asset during a construction period and the right to use the asset once the construction has been

completed. Both a lessee and a lessor should recognize lease cost or income in the same manner both

during and after the construction period. For example, a lessee might enter into a ground lease and begin

constructing a cell tower (a leasehold improvement) on the leased land. Likewise, a lessee might enter

into a lease of office space and begin installing partitions, lights, and other leasehold improvements within

the leased office space. The lessee should begin recognizing lease cost and the lessor should either

recognize lease income or derecognize the underlying asset when the ground or office leases

commence, which might occur concurrent with or prior to the lessee beginning construction of its

leasehold improvements.

ASC 842-10-55-21

Lease costs (or income) associated with building and ground leases incurred (earned) during and after

a construction period are for the right to use the underlying asset during and after construction of a

lessee asset. There is no distinction between the right to use an underlying asset during a construction

period and the right to use that asset after the construction period. Therefore, lease costs (or income)

associated with ground or building leases that are incurred (earned) during a construction period

should be recognized by the lessee (or lessor) in accordance with the guidance in Subtopics 842-20

and 842-30, respectively. That guidance does not address whether a lessee that accounts for the sale

or rental of real estate projects under Topic 970 should capitalize rental costs associated with ground

and building leases.

A master lease agreement that provides the lessee with the right to use multiple assets may contain

multiple lease components with multiple commencement dates. See Section 1.10 for more information on

master lease agreements.

1.2 Initial direct costs

Initial direct costs are the incremental costs of entering into a lease that are only incurred as a direct

result of the lease being executed. Examples of initial direct costs include commissions paid upon

executing the lease and costs paid to existing tenants as an incentive to vacate the leased premises.

These costs are incurred only if the lease is executed and would not have been incurred if the lease had

been drafted and negotiated, but ultimately had not been signed by both parties.

Initial Direct Costs: Incremental costs of a lease that would not have been incurred if the lease had not

been obtained.

Definitions 13

A cost that would have been incurred if the lease had been negotiated and drafted but ultimately not

executed does not qualify as an initial direct cost and is therefore expensed as incurred. These costs

include general overhead costs (depreciation, occupancy and equipment costs, idle time); costs related to

activities performed by the lessor for advertising, soliciting potential lessees, servicing existing leases,

and other ancillary activities; and costs related to activities that occur before the lease is obtained, such

as acquiring tax or legal advice, negotiating lease conditions, or evaluating the creditworthiness of a

lessee. Similarly, lease-related payroll costs would not be considered incremental, as they could not be

avoided if a lease were not executed.

At the crossroads: Initial direct costs

Under legacy GAAP, “initial direct costs” of a lease are defined more broadly than in ASC 842, and

include many costs associated with the origination of a lease, such as evaluating a lessee’s financial

condition, negotiating lease terms, preparing documents, and closing the transaction. ASC 842 defines

“initial direct costs” more narrowly, including only costs that are truly incremental to executing a lease,

such as broker commissions and amounts paid to existing tenants to facilitate early termination of their

existing leases. Costs related to evaluating a lessee’s financial condition, negotiating lease terms,

preparing documents, and closing the transaction are no longer considered initial direct costs under

ASC 842. Therefore, lessees and lessors alike will find that more of their lease-related costs are

expensed as incurred under ASC 842 than under legacy GAAP.

The following example from ASC 842-10-55 illustrates a lessee and lessor’s analysis of costs incurred to

obtain a lease and their assessment of whether those costs meet the definition of “initial direct costs.”

ASC 842-10-30-9

Initial direct costs for a lessee or a lessor may include, for example, either of the following:

a. Commissions

b. Payments made to an existing tenant to incentivize that tenant to terminate its lease.

ASC 842-10-30-10

Costs to negotiate or arrange a lease that would have been incurred regardless of whether the lease

was obtained, such as fixed employee salaries, are not initial direct costs. The following items are

examples of costs that are not initial direct costs:

a. General overheads, including, for example, depreciation, occupancy and equipment costs,

unsuccessful origination efforts, and idle time

b. Costs related to activities performed by the lessor for advertising, soliciting potential lessees,

servicing existing leases, or other ancillary activities

c. Costs related to activities that occur before the lease is obtained, such as costs of obtaining tax or

legal advice, negotiating lease terms and conditions, or evaluating a prospective lessee’s financial

condition.

Definitions 14

Example 27—Initial Direct Costs

ASC 842-10-55-240

Lessee and Lessor enter into an operating lease. The following costs are incurred in connection with

the lease:

Travel costs related to lease proposal

$ 7,000

External legal fees

22,000

Allocation of employee costs for time negotiating lease terms and

conditions

6,000

Commissions to brokers

10,000

Total costs incurred by Lessor

$ 45,000

External legal fees

$ 15,000

Allocation of employee costs for time negotiating lease terms and

conditions

7,000

Payments made to existing tenant to obtain the lease

20,000

Total costs incurred by Lessee

$ 42,000

ASC 842-10-55-241

Lessor capitalizes initial direct costs of $10,000, which it recognizes ratably over the lease term,

consistent with its recognition of lease income. The $10,000 in broker commissions is an initial direct

cost because that cost was incurred only as a direct result of obtaining the lease (that is, only as a

direct result of the lease being executed). None of the other costs incurred by Lessor meet the

definition of initial direct costs because they would have been incurred even if the lease had not been

executed. For example, the employee salaries are paid regardless of whether the lease is obtained,

and Lessor would be required to pay its attorneys for negotiating and drafting the lease even if Lessee

did not execute the lease.

ASC 842-10-55-242

Lessee includes $20,000 of initial direct costs in the initial measurement of the right-of-use asset.

Lessee amortizes those costs ratably over the lease term as part of its total lease cost. Throughout the

lease term, any unamortized amounts from the original $20,000 are included in the measurement of the

right-of-use asset. The $20,000 payment to the existing tenant is an initial direct cost because that

cost is only incurred upon obtaining the lease; it would not have been owed if the lease had not been

executed. None of the other costs incurred by Lessee meet the definition of initial direct costs because

they would have been incurred even if the lease had not been executed (for example, the employee

salaries are paid regardless of whether the lease is obtained, and Lessee would be required to pay its

attorneys for negotiating and drafting the lease even if the lease was not executed).

Definitions 15

Grant Thornton insights: Initial direct costs in ASC 842 versus contract costs

in ASC 340-40

The terms “initial direct costs” and “costs to obtain a contract,” used in ASC 842 and the cost deferral

guidance related to revenue contracts in ASC 340-40, Other Assets and Deferred Costs: Contracts

With Customers, respectively, have similar definitions. In ASC 842, initial direct costs are defined as

“incremental costs of a lease that would not have been incurred if the lease had not been obtained.”

In ASC 340-40, incremental costs of obtaining a contract are described as “those costs that an entity

incurs to obtain a contract with a customer that it would not have incurred if the contract had not

been obtained (for example, a sales commission).” In paragraph BC306 of ASU 2016-02, the Board

notes that these terms are aligned intentionally and can be viewed conceptually in the same way.

Accordingly, entities should consider whether their processes for identifying initial direct costs and

incremental costs of obtaining a contract are aligned.

1.3 ‘Reasonably certain’ threshold

The FASB established a “reasonably certain” threshold for determining the likelihood that a lessee will

exercise an option in a lease. This threshold applies to a lessee’s option to extend or terminate a lease

and to purchase the underlying asset. An entity should consider all relevant economic factors, including

those related to the contract, the underlying asset, the market, and the entity, when determining whether

a lessee is “reasonably certain” to exercise an option in a lease. Each factor should be considered both

on its own and in conjunction with other factors to the extent that they are interrelated. Examples of

considerations contributing to the assessment of “reasonably certain” include, but are not limited to, the

following factors:

 How contractual terms and conditions for optional periods compare with current market rates,

including

 The amounts of lease payments made during the optional periods

 The amounts of any variable lease payments or other contingent payments, such as payments for

termination penalties or residual value guarantees

 The terms and conditions of options that can be exercised after the initial optional periods. For

example, a purchase option that is exercisable at a price that is expected to be below the then-

current fair value of the underlying asset, but is only exercisable during an optional renewal

period, might contribute to an entity’s assessment of whether the renewal option is reasonably

certain to be exercised.

 Leasehold improvements that are expected to have significant economic value to the lessee when an

option to extend, terminate, or purchase the underlying asset can be exercised. A lessee that has

made a significant investment in a leased asset or property may have a greater economic incentive to

continue a contract or purchase an underlying asset at the end of the lease term.

 Costs relating to the termination of the lease and signing a new lease, including the costs of

negotiation, relocation, identification of another asset to lease, and costs to return the underlying

asset to the condition or location specified in the contract

 The importance of the underlying asset to the lessee’s operations, including whether the asset is

specialized and where it is located

Definitions 16

ASC 842-10-55-26

At the commencement date, an entity assesses whether the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise or

not to exercise an option by considering all economic factors relevant to that assessment—contract-

based, asset-based, market-based, and entity-based factors. An entity’s assessment often will require

the consideration of a combination of those factors because they are interrelated. Examples of

economic factors to consider include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

a. Contractual terms and conditions for the optional periods compared with current market rates, such

as:

1. The amount of lease payments in any optional period

2. The amount of any variable lease payments or other contingent payments, such as payments

under termination penalties and residual value guarantees

3. The terms and conditions of any options that are exercisable after initial optional periods (for

example, the terms and conditions of a purchase option that is exercisable at the end of an

extension period at a rate that is currently below market rates).

b. Significant leasehold improvements that are expected to have significant economic value for the

lessee when the option to extend or terminate the lease or to purchase the underlying asset

becomes exercisable.

c. Costs relating to the termination of the lease and the signing of a new lease, such as negotiation

costs, relocation costs, costs of identifying another underlying asset suitable for the lessee’s

operations, or costs associated with returning the underlying asset in a contractually specified

condition or to a contractually specified location.

d. The importance of that underlying asset to the lessee’s operations, considering, for example,

whether the underlying asset is a specialized asset and the location of the underlying asset.

The following excerpts from Examples 23 and 24 in ASC 842-10-55 illustrate how to apply the guidance

on assessing whether a lessee is “reasonably certain” to exercise a purchase option. Example 23

considers a situation where a lessee has the option to purchase the underlying asset at the end of the

lease term at an amount that is significantly below its expected residual value. Example 24 discusses a

situation where the underlying asset is customized to the specifications of the lessee, and is integral to

the lessee’s business operations.

Example 23—Lessee Purchase Option (excerpt)

ASC 842-10-55-211

Lessee enters into a 5-year lease of equipment with annual lease payments of $59,000, payable at the

end of each year. There are no initial direct costs incurred by Lessee or lease incentives. At the end of

Year 5, Lessee has an option to purchase the equipment for $5,000. The expected residual value of

the equipment at the end of the lease is $75,000. Because the exercise price of the purchase option is

significantly discounted from the expected fair value of the equipment at the time the purchase option

becomes exercisable, Lessee concludes that it is reasonably certain to exercise the purchase option.

Definitions 17

Example 24—Lessee Purchase Option (excerpt)

ASC 842-10-55-218

Lessee enters into a 5-year lease of specialized equipment with annual lease payments of $65,000,

payable in arrears. There are no initial direct costs or lease incentives. At the end of Year 5, Lessee

has an option to purchase the equipment for $90,000, which is the expected fair value of the equipment

at that date. Lessor constructed the equipment specifically for the needs of Lessee. Furthermore, the

specialized equipment is vital to Lessee’s business; without this asset, Lessee would be required

to halt operations while a new asset was built or customized. As such, Lessee concludes that it is

reasonably certain to exercise the purchase option because the specialized nature, specifications of

the asset, and its role in Lessee’s operations create a significant economic incentive for Lessee to do

so.

Grant Thornton insights: Reasonably certain versus more-likely-than-not

The threshold for including an optional period in the lease term is whether or not the entity is

“reasonably certain” that the lessee will exercise an option to extend the lease. “Reasonably certain”

is intended to be a high threshold, and reflects the existence of a significant economic incentive for

a lessee to exercise the option. The Board intentionally set this threshold at a higher level than the

“more-likely-than-not” threshold used in other areas of GAAP, which is generally regarded as being

more than a 50 percent likelihood of an event occurring.

At the crossroads: Reasonably assured and reasonably certain

Legacy GAAP uses the term “reasonably assured” with respect to whether an optional period should

be included in the lease term. The term that ASC 842 uses is “reasonably certain,” which converges

the terminology in ASC 842 with the terminology used in IFRS Standards. The Board states in

paragraph BC195 of ASU 2016-02 that it views “reasonably assured” and “reasonably certain” as

synonyms, and expects that the terms should be applied in the same way. Therefore, although the

legacy GAAP terminology has changed under ASC 842, the Board expects that the terms will be

applied in the same manner.

1.4 Lease payments

Many types of payments may be required under a lease agreement, but only certain payments are

included in the measurement of lease payments for purposes of classifying and recognizing the lease.

These items are summarized in Figure 1.1 below, and discussed in detail in the rest of this section.

Definitions 18

Figure 1.1: Lease payments at a glance

According to ASC 842, “lease payments” include the following elements:

 Fixed payments, including in-substance fixed payments, minus lease incentives paid or payable to

the lessee. “In-substance fixed payments” are lease payments that appear to contain variability but

are effectively unavoidable, such as consumer price index (CPI) linked payments subject to a fixed

floor that is virtually certain to be applied at each payment adjustment date. “Lease incentives”

include payments made to, or on behalf of, a lessee, as well as losses incurred by a lessor from

assuming a lessee’s preexisting lease with a third party.

 Variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate, such as LIBOR or CPI

 The exercise price of an option to purchase the underlying asset if the lessee is reasonably certain to

exercise that option

 Lease termination penalty if the lease term assumes that a lease termination option will be exercised,

triggering payment of the penalty

 Fees paid by the lessee to the owners of a special-purpose entity for structuring the transaction

 Amounts that the lessee is probable of owing under a residual value guarantee (applies to the

lessee’s analysis only)

ASC 842 also specifically excludes the following types of payments from the definition of “lease

payments”:

 Variable lease payments other than those dependent on an index or a rate

Include in lease payments

Exclude from lease payments

+ Fixed payments and in-substance fixed

payments, reduced by lease incentives paid or

payable to the lessee

+ Variable lease payments dependent on a rate

or index

+ Exercise price of options that a lessee is

reasonably certain to exercise

+ Termination penalties if termination is reasonably

certain

+ Fees paid by the lessee to owners of a special-

purpose entity for structuring the transaction

+ Amounts probable of being owed under a

residual value guarantee (lessee only)

- Variable lease payments not dependent on an

index or a rate

- Guarantee of the lessor’s debt

- Amounts allocated to nonlease components

Definitions 19

 A guarantee of the lessor’s debt by the lessee

 Amounts allocated to nonlease components in accordance with the guidance in 842-10-15-33 through

15-42

Lease Payments: See paragraph 842-10-30-5 for what constitutes lease payments from the perspective

of a lessee and a lessor.

ASC 842-10-30-5

At the commencement date, the lease payments shall consist of the following payments relating to the

use of the underlying asset during the lease term:

a. Fixed payments, including in substance fixed payments, less any lease incentives paid or payable

to the lessee (see paragraphs 842-10-55-30 through 55-31).

b. Variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate (such as the Consumer Price Index or a

market interest rate), initially measured using the index or rate at the commencement date.

c. The exercise price of an option to purchase the underlying asset if the lessee is reasonably certain

to exercise that option (assessed considering the factors in paragraph 842-10-55-26).

d. Payments for penalties for terminating the lease if the lease term (as determined in accordance

with paragraph 842-10-30-1) reflects the lessee exercising an option to terminate the lease.

e. Fees paid by the lessee to the owners of a special-purpose entity for structuring the transaction.

However, such fees shall not be included in the fair value of the underlying asset for purposes of

applying paragraph 842-10-25-2(d).

f. For a lessee only, amounts probable of being owed by the lessee under residual value guarantees

(see paragraphs 842-10-55-34 through 55-36).

ASC 842-10-30-6

Lease payments do not include any of the following:

a. Variable lease payments other than those in paragraph 842-10-30-5(b)

b. Any guarantee by the lessee of the lessor’s debt

c. Amounts allocated to nonlease components in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-15-33 through

15-42.

1.4.1 Fixed and in-substance fixed payments

Lessees are required to include fixed payments, including in-substance fixed payments, in the calculation

of lease payments.

Definitions 20

Fixed payments

Fixed payments are unavoidable payments that are specified in the lease.

In-substance fixed payments

In-substance fixed payments are payments that may appear variable in form, but are, in substance,

unavoidable.

ASC 842-10-55-31

Lease payments include in substance fixed lease payments. In substance fixed payments are

payments that may, in form, appear to contain variability but are, in effect, unavoidable. In substance

fixed payments for a lessee or a lessor may include, for example, any of the following:

a. Payments that do not create genuine variability (such as those that result from clauses that do not

have economic substance)

b. The lower of the payments to be made when a lessee has a choice about which set of payments it

makes, although it must make at least one set of payments.

A common example of in-substance fixed payments are payments that escalate based on changes in the

CPI, subject to a cap. For example, a lease might specify that lease payments increase each year by

three times the annual change in CPI, subject to a cap of 2 percent per annum. If the lease payments are

structured to increase by 2 percent per year (that is, it is highly likely, based on historical information, that

three times the annual percentage change in CPI will exceed 2 percent), what would otherwise appear to

be variable CPI-based payments are considered in-substance fixed payments.

The economic substance of the variability of the payments must be considered when assessing in-

substance fixed payments. That is, variability based on performance or usage of the underlying asset

might be more substantive in the context of a lease than variability based on an external index or rate.

Therefore, payments based on a level of activity or volume of use of the underlying asset would be

viewed as variable rather than in-substance fixed payments, even if the level of activity or use is highly

certain, while payments that appear to contain variability based on an index (such as CPI) but are

structured such that the payments are virtually certain to be fixed would be viewed as in-substance fixed

payments.

In-substance fixed payments

Example 1: CPI-based adjustments

Lessee enters into an equipment lease specifying that for each month throughout the lease term,

Lessee must pay Lessor the sum of (a) $1,000 and (b) the greater of (i) $200 or (ii) the most recent

month-over-month percentage change in CPI times $1,000. The month-over-month percentage change

in CPI has not exceeded 2 percent over the past 120 months.

Lessee determines that the lease payments consist of the fixed payment of $1,000 per month plus an

in-substance fixed payment of $200 per month. Although the monthly payment appears to contain

variability, Lessee deems it remote that the variable component will exceed $200 per month. Since the

Definitions 21

additional $200 monthly payment is effectively unavoidable and does not vary based on the asset’s

level of activity or the volume of use, the total monthly fixed payment is $1,200.

Example 2: Two possible payment streams

A lease of a retail space in a newly developed shopping complex specifies lease payments of $100,000

per year plus 1 percent of the lessee’s annual sales in that space. If by the end of year two the

occupancy rate of the shopping center is above 90 percent, the minimum lease payments will increase

by 5 percent for the remaining three years, meaning the annual payments will increase to $105,000 per

year for the remainder of the lease. If by the end of year two the occupancy rate of the shopping center

is below 90 percent, then the annual payments remain at $100,000, but the lessee must remit an

additional payment of $20,000 to the lessor at the beginning of year three.

As there are two possible payment streams, the parties must analyze each possibility separately. If

the occupancy threshold is not reached by the end of year two, the minimum payments are $520,000.

If the occupancy threshold is reached by the end of year two, the minimum payments are $515,000.

Regardless of the likelihood that the occupancy threshold will be achieved, the minimum unavoidable

payment is $515,000, and therefore fixed payments of $515,000 are included in the lease payments by

the lessee and lessor.

The payment of 1 percent of sales is a variable payment based on the use of the asset and is therefore

excluded from the calculation of lease payments. Variable payments are recognized by both parties

once the sales have occurred and the payments are no longer variable.

Example 3: Production-based payments

Lessee enters into a lease of solar panels, which specifies that Lessee will pay an amount to Lessor

each month equal to the product of (a) a fixed price and (b) the number of megawatt hours of electricity

produced by the solar panels during that month. Although some minimum amount of megawatt hours of

electricity is virtually certain to be produced each month (provided the solar panels are operable), the

payments are variable rather than in-substance fixed because they are based on the underlying assets’

level of productivity.

Grant Thornton insights: Contracts that specify various conditional rates

Lease contracts may specify various rental rates that take effect based on current conditions. For

example, oil drilling rig contracts specify a variety of “day rates” that correspond to certain conditions,

such as when the rig is operating, when it is being moved, and when it is unable to operate due to

weather conditions. In certain conditions the day rate could be zero. In contracts where the rate could

fluctuate within a range that includes zero, a question arises whether the contract includes in-

substance fixed payments or solely variable payments.

We believe that these types of contracts contain in-substance fixed payments, based on the

contractual rate that reflects the lowest, nonprotective commercial rate included in the contract. A

rate of zero would not be appropriate, as such a rate represents a protective contract provision for

the lessee rather than a commercial contract rate.

Definitions 22

1.4.2 Lease incentives

The definition of lease payments includes fixed payments less any incentives paid or payable to the

lessee. In addition, any fixed payments included in the consideration in the contract that are not part of

the lease payments must be reduced by any other incentives paid or payable to the lessee. Lease

incentives include (1) payments made by the lessor to or on behalf of the lessee, and (2) losses incurred

by the lessor assuming a lessee’s lease with a third party.

As an inducement to enter into certain lease arrangements, the lessor may transfer cash directly to the

lessee or make payments to third parties on the lessee’s behalf. This practice is common in real estate

leases, where a lessor might fund the lessee’s improvements to the leased space. The funding might

occur via a lump-sum transfer of cash from the lessor to the lessee, periodic reimbursement of qualifying

costs incurred by the lessee, or direct payment from the lessor to the third-party contractor hired to

construct the improvements. Regardless of the form, the amounts transferred from the lessor to the

lessee or to a third party on the lessee’s behalf are lease incentives that reduce the consideration in the

contract for both the lessee and lessor.

In addition, a lessor might offer to assume a lessee’s existing lease as an incentive for the lessee to enter

into a new lease. Any loss incurred by the lessor in connection with assuming a lessee’s existing lease is

a lease incentive that reduces the consideration in the contract. The lessee’s and lessor’s estimate of this

loss would likely differ since the parties would perform independent estimates based on information

readily available to each. For example, the lessor might base its estimate on expected sublease income,

information that is not readily available to the lessee.

ASC 842-10-55-30

Lease incentives include both of the following:

a. Payments made to or on behalf of the lessee

b. Losses incurred by the lessor as a result of assuming a lessee’s preexisting lease with a third

party. In that circumstance, the lessor and the lessee should independently estimate any loss

attributable to that assumption. For example, the lessee’s estimate of the lease incentive could be

based on a comparison of the new lease with the market rental rate available for similar underlying

assets or the market rental rate from the same lessor without the lease assumption. The lessor

should estimate any loss on the basis of the total remaining costs reduced by the expected

benefits from the sublease of use of the assumed underlying asset.

1.4.3 Variable payments

A variable payment is a payment in a lease that varies based on changes in facts and circumstances

occurring after the commencement date, other than the passage of time. Examples of variables on which

payments may be based include sales at a retail location or megawatts of electricity produced by a power

plant. A variable payment may also be based on a rate or an index, for example, CPI, the prime rate, or

LIBOR.

Definitions 23

Variable Lease Payments: Payments made by a lessee to a lessor for the right to use an underlying

asset that vary because of changes in facts or circumstances occurring after the commencement date,

other than the passage of time.

The only variable payments included in “lease payments” are those that are based on an index or rate. A

common example is payments that increase over the lease term based on increases in CPI. Variable

payments based on an index or rate are included in lease payments based on the index or rate as of the

lease commencement date. The rate is not updated after commencement, unless there is a lease

modification that is not treated as a separate contract or another event occurs that requires

remeasurement, as discussed in Section 5.7 and 5.8 for lessees and Section 6.9 for lessors.

Variable payments based on an index or a rate

Example 1

A five-year lease that requires annual payments in advance specifies that the first payment is $100,000,

and that each subsequent payment will increase by one month LIBOR at the end of each year. One

month LIBOR at the commencement date of the lease is 2 percent. Since variable payments based on

an index or rate are included in the lease payments based on the index or rate at the commencement

date of the lease, the lease payments in this example equal $520,404, which reflects a series of five

payments starting at $100,000 and escalating by 2 percent per year on a compounding basis.

Example 2

A five-year lease that requires annual payments in advance specifies that the first payment will be

$100,000, and that each subsequent payment will increase by the percentage increase in CPI over

the past 12 months. If CPI decreases over a 12-month period, then the annual payment is the same

as the prior year’s payment. Since variable payments based on an index or rate are included in the

lease payments based on the index or rate at the commencement date of the lease, the future lease

payments are calculated assuming CPI is unchanged over the lease term. Therefore, in this example,

lease payments would equal $500,000, which reflects a series of five fixed payments of $100,000.

Variable payments not based on an index or a rate are excluded from lease payments in calculating the

consideration in the contract.

Grant Thornton insights: Variable payments that reset to market rates

It is common for leases to require that payments “reset” to market rates from time to time. When this is

the case, the adjusted lease payments are considered variable. We believe that the market rental rate

is a “rate,” as described in ASC 842-10-30-5(b) (included at the beginning of Section 1.4), although

ASC 842 does not explicitly state this.

Definitions 24

The guidance on lease payments in paragraph 28 of IFRS 16, Leases, which is an area of the new

lease accounting guidance where the FASB and IASB reached converged decisions, specifies that

“payments that vary to reflect changes in market rental rates” is an example of variable lease payments

that depend on an index or a rate. Therefore, similar to other variable payments that are based on an

index or rate, variable payments that are based on market rental rates should be included in lease

payments as of the commencement date using the market rental rate at lease commencement.

For example, a ten-year lease might require fixed payments for the first five years of the contract, with

payments for years six through ten equal to whatever the market rental rate is as of the end of year

five. In this contract, the lease payments for years six through ten are variable until the end of year

five, when they become fixed at the then-current market rate. The lease payments measured at the

commencement date would include payments for years six through ten of the lease term based on the

current market rental rate as of the lease commencement date. If the lease payments for years one

through five are fixed at $100,000 per year, and that amount represents a market rental rate as of

lease commencement, then the lease payments included in the consideration in the contract would

equal $1 million.

Continuing this example, the parties to the lease would not remeasure the lease payments when the

payments for years six through ten become fixed. As noted in ASC 842-10-35-4(b), a change in a

reference index or rate that was used to calculate some or all of the variable lease payments does not

constitute a resolution of a contingency that would require an entity to remeasure lease payments.

Rather, any difference between the actual lease payments in years six through ten and the lease

payments included in the consideration in the contract at lease commencement for years six through

ten would be recognized in the period incurred, in the same manner as variable lease payments that

are not based on an index or rate.

In some cases, a lease requires the lessee to remit noncash consideration to the lessor, and an entity

must consider whether such consideration is included in the lease payments.

Grant Thornton insights: Noncash consideration provided to a lessor

The guidance in ASC 842-10-30-6 and 55-15 specifically excludes certain types of noncash

consideration from lease payments, including a lessee’s guarantee of the lessor’s debt and a lessee’s

indemnification for environmental contamination. While these forms of noncash consideration are

specifically excluded from lease payments under ASC 842, they are still recognized in the financial

statements of the lessee in accordance with other Codification Topics.

Leases may also contain other types of noncash consideration, such as shares of stock and equity

warrants. All noncash consideration not specifically excluded from lease payments should be included

in lease payments based on its fair value at the lease commencement date. For example, if a lease

includes a provision that the lessee will issue fully vested stock warrants to the lessor, the fair value

of those warrants at the lease commencement date would be included in lease payments when

calculating the present value of lease payments for classification and recognition purposes. Entities

may refer to the guidance in ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, for measuring

noncash consideration as a starting point in measuring the value of the noncash consideration in a

leasing arrangement.

Definitions 25

Distinguishing variable lease payments from asset retirement obligations (AROs)

Costs that a lessee must incur to revert a modified underlying asset back to its original condition before

returning it to the lessor generally do not meet the definition of a lease payment. Instead, such costs

should be accounted for in accordance with ASC 410-20, Asset Retirement and Environmental

Obligations: Asset Retirement Obligations. On the other hand, costs that a lessee must incur to dismantle

and remove an underlying asset from the lessee’s property at the end of the lease term should be

considered lease payments or variable lease payments, provided the contract obligates the lessee to

bear the costs of dismantling and removing the leased asset.

For example, the costs associated with a lessee’s contractual obligation to remove its own cell tower from

land it is leasing before returning the land to the lessor are accounted for based on the guidance on

asset retirement obligations in ASC 410-20. In contrast, a lessee’s cost to dismantle and remove leased

manufacturing equipment from its facility so that the equipment can be returned to the lessor at the end of

the lease term is treated as a variable lease payment associated with the equipment lease.

ASC 842-10-55-37

Obligations imposed by a lease agreement to return an underlying asset to its original condition if it

has been modified by the lessee (for example, a requirement to remove a lessee-installed leasehold

improvement) generally would not meet the definition of lease payments or variable lease payments

and would be accounted for in accordance with Subtopic 410-20 on asset retirement obligations. In

contrast, costs to dismantle and remove an underlying asset at the end of the lease term that are

imposed by the lease agreement generally would be considered lease payments or variable lease

payments.

Variable lease payments and derivative instruments

The guidance in ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, specifically excludes leases from its scope.

However, ASC 815 does note that a derivative instrument embedded in a lease should be evaluated to

determine if it meets the criteria for separation, including whether it is clearly and closely related to the

economic characteristics and risks of the host lease contract. Items such as lease payments that vary

based on (a) sales and (b) market rental rates are not considered embedded derivatives that require

separation from the lease. This is because (a) contracts with an underlying based on volumes of sales of

one of the parties to the contract are scoped out of ASC 815, and (b) contracts with an underlying based

on market rental rates would likely be clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics and risks

of the lease host contract, respectively.

ASC 842-10-15-43

Paragraph 815-10-15-79 explains that leases that are within the scope of this Topic are not derivative

instruments subject to Subtopic 815-10 on derivatives and hedging although a derivative instrument

embedded in a lease may be subject to the requirements of Section 815-15-25. Paragraph 815-10-15-

80 explains that residual value guarantees that are subject to the guidance in this Topic are not subject

to the guidance in Subtopic 815-10. Paragraph 815-10-15-81 requires that a third-party residual value

guarantor consider the guidance in Subtopic 815-10 for all residual value guarantees that it provides to

Definitions 26

determine whether they are derivative instruments and whether they qualify for any of the scope

exceptions in that Subtopic.

ASC 815-10-15-79

Leases that are within the scope of Topic 842 are not derivative instruments subject to this Subtopic,

although a derivative instrument embedded in a lease may be subject to the requirements of

paragraph 815-15-25-1.

ASC 815-15-25-1

An embedded derivative shall be separated from the host contract and accounted for as a derivative

instrument pursuant to Subtopic 815-10 if and only if all of the following criteria are met:

a. The economic characteristics and risks of the embedded derivative are not clearly and closely

related to the economic characteristics and risks of the host contract.

b. The hybrid instrument is not remeasured at fair value under otherwise applicable generally

accepted accounting principles (GAAP) with changes in fair value reported in earnings as they

occur.

A separate instrument with the same terms as the embedded derivative would, pursuant to

Section 815-10-15, be a derivative instrument subject to the requirements of this Subtopic. (The

initial net investment for the hybrid instrument shall not be considered to be the initial net investment

for the embedded derivative.)

Indemnification clause for tax benefits

Some leases indemnify lessors on an after-tax basis for certain tax benefits that they might lose if there is

a change in tax law. While these indemnification payments seem to meet the definition of variable lease

payments, they are not of the same nature as other payments that are contemplated in the variable lease

payment guidance. Because these payments are based on specific tax law, they must be accounted for

under ASC 460, Guarantees in a way that reflects the tax law association. These indemnification clauses

should not have an impact on lease classification.

ASC 842-10-55-38

Some leases contain indemnification clauses that indemnify lessors on an after-tax basis for certain tax

benefits that the lessor may lose if a change in the tax law precludes realization of those tax benefits.

Although the indemnification payments may appear to meet the definition of variable lease payments,

those payments are not of the nature normally expected to arise under variable lease payment

provisions.

ASC 842-10-55-39

Because of the close association of the indemnification payments to specific aspects of the tax law,

any payments should be accounted for in a manner that recognizes the tax law association. The lease

classification should not be changed.

Definitions 27

1.4.4 Exercise price of an option to purchase the underlying asset

Lease payments include the exercise price of an option to purchase the underlying asset if it is

reasonably certain that the lessee will exercise that option. The lessee and the lessor must each evaluate

whether it is reasonably certain that the lessee will exercise the option, and each party might reach a

different conclusion. Refer to Section 1.3 for information about determining whether an event is

“reasonably certain” to occur.

Unlike a lessee call option, which allows a lessee to purchase the underlying asset, the exercise price of

a lessor put option, which is similar to a residual value guarantee as discussed in Section 1.4.7, must be

reflected in the lease payments. Since the lessee is obligated to pay the exercise price based on events

outside its control (and within the lessor’s control), the exercise price is included in the lease payments.

ASC 842-10-30-3

At the commencement date, an entity shall assess an option to purchase the underlying asset on the

same basis as an option to extend or not to terminate a lease, as described in paragraph 842-10-30-2.

ASC 842-10-55-35

If the lessor has the right to require the lessee to purchase the underlying asset by the end of the lease

term, the stated purchase price is included in lease payments. That amount is, in effect, a guaranteed

residual value that the lessee is obligated to pay on the basis of circumstances outside its control.

1.4.5 Lease termination penalties

A lease may specify a penalty that must be paid if the lessee terminates the lease early. The ASC Master

Glossary defines a “penalty” as follows:

Penalty: Any requirement that is imposed or can be imposed on the lessee by the lease agreement or

by factors outside the lease agreement to do any of the following:

a. Disburse cash

b. Incur or assume a liability

c. Perform services

d. Surrender or transfer an asset or rights to an asset or otherwise forego an economic benefit, or

suffer an economic detriment. Factors to consider in determining whether an economic detriment

may be incurred include, but are not limited to, all of the following:

1. The uniqueness of purpose or location of the property

2. The availability of a comparable replacement property

3. The relative importance or significance of the property to the continuation of the lessee’s line of

business or service to its customers

Definitions 28

4. The existence of leasehold improvements or other assets whose value would be impaired by

the lessee vacating or discontinuing use of the leased property

5. Adverse tax consequences

6. The ability or willingness of the lessee to bear the cost associated with relocation or

replacement of the leased property at market rental rates or to tolerate other parties using the

leased property.

A penalty for early termination of a lease is included in the lease payments if it is deemed reasonably

certain that the lease will be terminated early and the penalty will be incurred. Whether the lease will be

terminated early is determined in accordance with the guidance on the lease term in ASC 842-10-30-1, as

discussed in Section 1.5. The penalty for lease termination is included in lease payments if the option to

terminate is the lessee’s, and it is reasonably certain that the lessee will terminate the lease before the

end of the contractual term.

Example 26 in ASC 842-10-55 illustrates a lessee’s analysis to determine whether to include a

termination penalty in the lease payments.

Example 26—Termination Penalties

ASC 842-10-55-236

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease of an asset, which it can terminate at the end of each year

beginning at the end of Year 6. Lease payments are $50,000 per year during the 10-year term, payable

at the beginning of each year. If Lessee terminates the lease at the end of Year 6, Lessee must pay a

penalty to Lessor of $20,000. The termination penalty decreases by $5,000 in each successive year.

ASC 842-10-55-237

At the commencement date, Lessee concludes that it is not reasonably certain it will continue to use

the underlying asset after Year 6, having considered both the significance of the termination penalty (in

absolute terms and in relation to the remaining lease payments after the date the termination option

becomes exercisable) and the other factors in paragraph 842-10-55-26.

ASC 842-10-55-238

Accordingly, Lessee determines that the lease term is six years. At the commencement date, Lessee

measures the lease liability on the basis of lease payments of $50,000 for 6 years plus the penalty of

$20,000 payable at the end of Year 6.

1.4.6 Fees paid by the lessee to owners of a special-purpose entity

Fees paid by the lessee to the owners of a special-purpose entity for structuring the transaction are

included in the calculation of lease payments. However, these fees are not included in determining the

fair value of the underlying asset for purposes of classifying the lease.

Definitions 29

1.4.7 Amounts probable of being owed under a residual value guarantee

The amount that a lessee is probable to owe under a residual value guarantee is included in the lessee’s

(and not the lessor’s) calculation of lease payments. A residual value guarantee exists when the lessee

guarantees the minimum value of the underlying asset that will be returned to the lessor at the end of the

lease term.

Residual Value Guarantee: A guarantee made to a lessor that the value of an underlying asset returned

to the lessor at the end of a lease will be at least a specified amount.

A lessee must estimate the amount that it is probable to owe the lessor to satisfy a residual value

guarantee, and include that amount in the lease payments. In paragraph BC214 of ASU 2016-02, the

Board explains that it considered, but rejected, a model that would require accounting for residual value

guarantees separately from the related leases, on the basis that such guarantees are linked to the value

of the underlying asset and may meet the definition of a derivative. Ultimately, the Board decided to

stipulate in ASC 815-10-15-80 that residual value guarantees accounted for under ASC 842 are excluded

from the scope of the derivatives guidance, recognizing that they are so closely related to other terms and

conditions in a lease that separating them from the lease could be misleading.

Lease provisions that require the lessee to reimburse the lessor for a deficiency in residual value due to

damage, extraordinary wear, or excessive usage are not considered residual value guarantees. These

payments are similar to variable lease payments, since they cannot be determined at the lease

commencement date and accordingly are excluded from the calculation of lease payments.

ASC 842-10-55-34

A lease provision requiring the lessee to make up a residual value deficiency that is attributable to

damage, extraordinary wear and tear, or excessive usage is similar to variable lease payments in that

the amount is not determinable at the commencement date. Such a provision does not constitute a

lessee guarantee of the residual value.

A lessee may obtain a residual value guarantee from an unrelated third party for the benefit of the lessor.

Unless the lessor expressly releases the lessee from an obligation under the lease as both the primary

obligor and the secondary obligor (in case the third party defaults on its obligation to pay the guarantee),

this third-party guarantee would not reduce the lease payments. If the lessor explicitly releases the lessee

from all or a portion of its primary and secondary obligation related to the residual value guarantee, then

the lessee must reduce the amount of the guaranteed residual value included in the lease payments, to

the extent that it has been released from its obligation. Amounts that the lessee pays to a third party to

secure a guarantee are treated as executory costs, which are expensed as incurred, and not included in

lease payments or initial direct costs.

Definitions 30

ASC 842-10-55-36

A residual value guarantee obtained by the lessee from an unrelated third party for the benefit of the

lessor should not be used to reduce the amount of the lessee’s lease payments under paragraph 842-

10-30-5(f) except to the extent that the lessor explicitly releases the lessee from obligation, including

the secondary obligation, which is if the guarantor defaults, a residual value deficiency must be made

up. Amounts paid in consideration for a guarantee by an unrelated third party are executory costs and

are not included in the lessee’s lease payments.

At the crossroads: Residual value guarantee and lease payments

Legacy GAAP requires lessees and lessors to include the entire amount of a residual value guarantee

in the calculation of “minimum lease payments.”

In contrast, ASC 842 requires that lease payments from the lessee’s perspective include only amounts

that the lessee is probable to owe to the lessor under a residual value guarantee. Lessors do not

include such amounts in their lease payment calculations.

Residual value guarantees and derivative instruments

The guidance in ASC 815 specifically excludes residual value guarantees that are accounted for under

ASC 842 from its scope. However, a third party that is guaranteeing the residual value of an underlying

asset in a lease (the guarantor) should consider the guidance in ASC 815 to determine whether the

guarantee must be accounted for as a derivative instrument.

ASC 815-10-15-80

Residual value guarantees that are subject to the requirements of Topic 842 on leases are not subject

to the requirements of this Subtopic.

ASC 815-10-15-81

A third-party residual value guarantor shall consider the guidance in this Subtopic for all residual value

guarantees that it provides to determine whether they are derivative instruments and whether they

qualify for any of the scope exceptions in this Subtopic. The guarantees described in paragraph 842-

10-15-43 for which the exceptions of paragraphs 460-10-15-7(b) and 460-10-25-1(a) do not apply are

subject to the initial recognition, initial measurement, and disclosure requirements of Topic 460.

Residual value guarantee on a portfolio of assets

Sometimes a lessor obtains a residual value guarantee for a portfolio of underlying assets that are leased

under separate contracts, such as a fleet of vehicles. This type of residual value guarantee cannot be

apportioned to individual underlying assets, as it is not possible to determine the guaranteed residual

Definitions 31

value on an asset-by-asset basis. Therefore, a residual value guarantee related to a portfolio of assets

should be excluded from the present value calculation under ASC 842-10-25-2(d) and 25-3(b)(1).

ASC 842-10-55-9

Lessors may obtain residual value guarantees for a portfolio of underlying assets for which settlement

is not solely based on the residual value of the individual underlying assets. In such cases, the lessor is

economically assured of receiving a minimum residual value for a portfolio of assets that are subject to

separate leases but not for each individual asset. Accordingly, when an asset has a residual value in

excess of the “guaranteed” amount, that excess is offset against shortfalls in residual value that exist in

other assets in the portfolio.

ASC 842-10-55-10

Residual value guarantees of a portfolio of underlying assets preclude a lessor from determining

the amount of the guaranteed residual value of any individual underlying asset within the portfolio.

Consequently, no such amounts should be considered when evaluating the lease classification criteria

in paragraphs 842-10-25-2(d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1).

1.5 Lease term

ASC 842 defines the “lease term” as the noncancellable period during which the lessee has the right to

use the underlying asset, adjusted for any extension or termination options that the lessee is reasonably

certain to exercise, as well as any options to extend or terminate the lease that are controlled by the

lessor. The lease term includes free-rent periods, and begins at the commencement date of the lease.

See Section 1.1 for more information about the commencement date.

Lease Term: The noncancellable period for which a lessee has the right to use an underlying asset,

together with all of the following:

a. Periods covered by an option to extend the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise that

option

b. Periods covered by an option to terminate the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain not to

exercise that option

c. Periods covered by an option to extend (or not to terminate) the lease in which exercise of the

option is controlled by the lessor.

The lease term is a key input for determining (1) whether the lease covers a major part of the underlying

asset’s remaining economic life as part of the lease classification analysis, (2) the lessee’s incremental

borrowing rate, and (3) the future period over which lease payments should be projected for purposes of

calculating their present value at the lease commencement date.

Definitions 32

ASC 842-10-30-1

An entity shall determine the lease term as the noncancellable period of the lease, together with all of

the following:

a. Periods covered by an option to extend the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise that

option

b. Periods covered by an option to terminate the lease if the lessee is reasonably certain not to

exercise that option

c. Periods covered by an option to extend (or not to terminate) the lease in which exercise of the

option is controlled by the lessor.

ASC 842-10-30-2

At the commencement date, an entity shall include the periods described in paragraph 842-10-30-1 in

the lease term having considered all relevant factors that create an economic incentive for the lessee

(that is, contract-based, asset-based, entity-based, and market-based factors). Those factors shall be

considered together, and the existence of any one factor does not necessarily signify that a lessee is

reasonably certain to exercise or not to exercise an option.

ASC 842-10-55-25

The lease term begins at the commencement date and includes any rent-free periods provided to the

lessee by the lessor.

1.5.1 Noncancellable period

In assessing the noncancellable period of a lease, an entity should consider the definition of a contract

and determine the period during which the contract is enforceable. ASC 606 describes the contract term

as the “contractual period over which the parties to the contract have present enforceable rights and

obligations.” Enforcing the rights and obligations in a contract is a matter of law. Because practices and

processes for establishing contracts vary among entities and across jurisdictions, each entity should

consider its established practices and processes when determining whether its agreements create

enforceable rights and obligations. If the lessee and the lessor both have the right to terminate the lease

without the other party’s permission and face only an insignificant penalty for doing so, the lease would

not be considered enforceable.

Contract: An agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations.

The noncancellable period extends from the commencement date of the lease to the date at which the

contract is no longer enforceable.

Definitions 33

Grant Thornton insights: Noncancellable period

Questions have arisen in practice about identifying the noncancellable period when the lessee and

lessor each have the unilateral right to terminate the contract at different points during the contract

term.

For example, Lessee and Lessor enter into a lease that commences on January 1, 20X1. Lessee has

the option to renew the lease exercisable on or before December 31, 20X1. If Lessee exercises this

renewal option, then Lessor must permit Lessee to continue using the underlying asset through

December 31, 20X2. On or before December 31, 20X2, Lessee may request another extension of the

lease through December 31, 20X3; however, Lessor is not required to honor this request and could

terminate the lease on December 31, 20X2. Neither Lessee nor Lessor would incur a more than

insignificant penalty for terminating the lease at December 31, 20X1 or 20X2.

In this example, we believe that the period from January 1, 20X1 through December 31, 20X1 is the

noncancellable period. Although the contract is no longer enforceable once both Lessee and Lessor

each have the right to terminate the lease without permission from the other party, and without

incurring more than an insignificant penalty, which occurs at December 31, 20X2, Lessee’s unilateral

right to terminate the contract at December 31, 20X1 indicates that, as of the lease commencement

date, the noncancellable period is one year.

We believe that ASC 842-10-55-23 describes one, but not the only, situation in which a lease is no

longer enforceable. In other words, although a lease is no longer enforceable when both the lessee

and lessor each have the unilateral right to terminate the lease without incurring more than an

insignificant penalty, the lease might become unenforceable at an earlier date, such as when the

lessee has the unilateral right to terminate (or not renew) the lease without incurring more than an

insignificant penalty.

We also note that the definition of “lease term” in the ASC Master Glossary includes the noncancellable

period “together with” periods covered by a lessee’s option to extend the lease if the lessee is

reasonably certain to exercise that option. Therefore, we do not believe that the noncancellable period

may be longer than the lease term.

ASC 842-10-55-23

An entity should determine the noncancellable period of a lease when determining the lease term.

When assessing the length of the noncancellable period of a lease, an entity should apply the definition

of a contract and determine the period for which the contract is enforceable. A lease is no longer

enforceable when both the lessee and the lessor each have the right to terminate the lease without

permission from the other party with no more than an insignificant penalty.

1.5.2 Lessee option to extend or terminate a lease

A contract may provide a lessee with the right to extend a lease beyond its noncancellable period, or to

terminate a lease before the end of its contractual term. In determining the lease term for a lease with a

lessee renewal or termination option, the lessee and the lessor must separately assess whether the

Definitions 34

lessee is reasonably certain to exercise (or not exercise) the option using the information that is available

to them. (For more information about the term “reasonably certain,” refer to Section 1.3.) Since the lessee

and lessor may have different information at-hand, they could arrive at different conclusions about the

likelihood that the lessee will exercise an option, and therefore use different lease terms in accounting for

the same lease. If a lessee is reasonably certain to exercise a renewal option, the period covered by that

renewal option is included in the lease term. If a lessee is not reasonably certain to exercise a renewal

option, the period covered by the renewal option is excluded from the lease term. Likewise, if it is

reasonably certain that a lessee will not exercise a termination option, the period after that termination

option becomes exercisable is included in the lease term.

Grant Thornton insights: ‘Month-to-month’ or ‘evergreen’ leases

Some leases are structured to automatically renew each month unless one of the parties to the

contract notifies the other that it wishes to terminate the agreement. These types of leases are

sometimes referred to as “month-to-month” or “evergreen” leases. We believe that the lease term for

such contracts must be evaluated in the same manner as any other lease, and that it is not appropriate

to presume that these leases are “short term.”

Even if both parties have the right to terminate the contract at the end of each month (or another

relatively short period of time), it is still necessary for both parties to consider whether the lessee is

reasonably certain not to exercise each monthly termination option in order to determine the term of the

lease. For example, a lessee might not exercise the termination option because doing so would trigger

a more than insignificant penalty.

Consider the following scenario: Lessee and Lessor enter into an equipment lease that automatically

renews on a monthly basis and can extend to a maximum term of three years at a fixed monthly rate.

Both Lessee and Lessor can terminate the lease at the end of each month by notifying the other party.

To assess the lease term associated with this arrangement, both parties must consider whether

Lessee is reasonably certain not to exercise each monthly termination option.

If Lessee or Lessor determines that Lessee is reasonably certain not to terminate the lease any time

prior to 15 months after the commencement date, then the lease term is 15 months. Even though both

Lessee and Lessor have the right to terminate the lease at the end of each month in this example, the

contract is deemed enforceable for 15 months from the commencement date, since it is not until 15

months after commencement when both parties have the right to terminate the contract without

incurring more than an insignificant penalty. This conclusion presumes that no longer being reasonably

certain not to exercise a termination option corresponds with not incurring more than an insignificant

penalty in connection with terminating the lease, which we believe will generally be the case.

ASC 842-10-55-24

If only a lessee has the right to terminate a lease, that right is considered to be an option to terminate

the lease available to the lessee that an entity considers when determining the lease term, as

described in paragraph 842-10-30-1(b). If only a lessor has the right to terminate a lease, the lease

term includes the period covered by the option to terminate the lease, as described in paragraph 842-

10-30-1(c).

Definitions 35

If a lease contains multiple options, each option is separately assessed to determine if it is reasonably

certain that it will or will not be exercised. A lessee may determine that it is reasonably certain to exercise

one or more options, but not others, based on the relevant facts and circumstances.

Grant Thornton insights: Lease term determination for head lease with

sublease renewal options

Some practitioners have questioned whether periods covered by lessee renewal options must be

included in the lease term if a factor outside the lessee’s control could compel the lessee to exercise

a renewal option.

On one hand, ASC 842-10-30-1 states that only periods covered by an option to extend a lease that is

controlled by the lessor must be included in the lease term (periods covered by options to extend a

lease controlled by the lessee might or might not be included in the lease term depending on whether

the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise the option).

On the other hand, in paragraph BC197 of ASU 2016-02 the Board explains that the approach for

including optional periods in the lease term under ASC 842 “accounts for renewal options only when

it is reasonably certain that they will be exercised or when exercise is outside the control of the entity

(such as when a lessor controls a lessee’s exercise of a renewal option or a termination option)”

(emphasis added).

Based on discussion with the FASB staff, we believe that only periods covered by options controlled by

the lessor (and not by other third parties, including a sublessee) must be included in the lease term.

Periods covered by options controlled by any party other than the lessor might or might not be included

in the lease term based on an assessment of whether it is reasonably certain that the option will be

exercised.

1.5.3 Fiscal funding clauses

A fiscal funding clause in a lease gives a governmental entity the right to exit a lease if it does not receive

sufficient funds through the appropriation process to make the lease payments.

Fiscal Funding Clause: A provision by which the lease is cancelable if the legislature or other funding

authority does not appropriate the funds necessary for the governmental unit to fulfill its obligations under

the lease agreement.

When a lease contains a fiscal funding clause, the parties must assess the likelihood that the lease will be

cancelled pursuant to the clause. If the parties determine that the likelihood of the clause being exercised

is more than remote, the lease term should include only those periods for which the parties deem funding

is reasonably certain, and should exclude periods for which there is more than a remote likelihood that

the fiscal funding clause will be triggered

Definitions 36

ASC 842-10-55-27

The existence of a fiscal funding clause in a lease agreement requires an assessment of the likelihood

of lease cancellation through exercise of the fiscal funding clause. If it is more than remote that the

fiscal funding clause will be exercised, the lease term should include only those periods for which

funding is reasonably certain.

1.6 Economic life

The lease term is assessed relative to an asset’s remaining economic life when determining lease

classification. The economic life of an asset can be expressed either as the period over which the asset is

expected to be economically usable by one or more users, or as a quantity of output (in terms of

production or use) expected to be obtained from an asset by one or more users.

Economic Life: Either the period over which an asset is expected to be economically usable by one or

more users or the number of production or similar units expected to be obtained from an asset by one or

more users.

1.7 Guarantees and indemnifications

The guidance in ASC 842 refers to ASC 460, to evaluate the accounting for certain guarantees and

indemnifications.

ASC 842-10-55-32

Paragraph 460-10-15-4(c) states that, except as provided in paragraph 460-10-15-7, the provisions of

Subtopic 460-10 on guarantees apply to indemnification agreements (contracts) that contingently

require an indemnifying party (guarantor) to make payments to an indemnified party (guaranteed party)

based on changes in an underlying that is related to an asset, a liability, or an equity security of the

indemnified party. Paragraph 460-10-55-23A provides related implementation guidance for a tax

indemnification provided to a lessor.

1.7.1 Indemnification payments

An indemnification clause in a lease that contingently requires the guarantor to make payments to the

guaranteed party based on changes in an underlying that is related to an asset, a liability, or an equity

security of the guaranteed party should be evaluated under ASC 460.

Definitions 37

ASC 460-10-15-4

Except as provided in paragraph 460-10-15-7, the provisions of this Topic apply to the following types

of guarantee contracts:

a. Contracts that contingently require a guarantor to make payments … to a guaranteed party based

on changes in an underlying that is related to an asset, a liability, or an equity security of the

guaranteed party. For related implementation guidance, see paragraph 460-10-55-2.

b. Contracts that contingently require a guarantor to make payments … to a guaranteed party based

on another entity’s failure to perform under an obligating agreement (performance guarantees). For

related implementation guidance, see paragraph 460-10-55-12.

c. Indemnification agreements (contracts) that contingently require an indemnifying party (guarantor)

to make payments to an indemnified party (guaranteed party) based on changes in an underlying

that is related to an asset, a liability, or an equity security of the indemnified party.

d. Indirect guarantees of the indebtedness of others, even though the payment to the guaranteed

party may not be based on changes in an underlying that is related to an asset, a liability, or an

equity security of the guaranteed party.

ASC 460-10-15-7 lists the types of contracts that fall outside the scope of ASC 460, including a lessee’s

guarantee of the residual value of the underlying asset when a lease expires under ASC 842, and

contingent payments that are variable lease payments.

ASC 460-10-15-7 (excerpt)

The guidance in this Topic does not apply to the following types of guarantee contracts:

a. A guarantee or an indemnification that is excluded from the scope of Topic 450 (see paragraph

450-20-15-2—primarily employment-related guarantees)

b. A lessee’s guarantee of the residual value of the underlying asset at the expiration of the lease

term under Topic 842

c. A contract that meets the characteristics in paragraph 460-10-15-4(a) but is accounted for as

variable lease payments under Topic 842.

1.7.2 Tax indemnification

A lessee accounts for a tax indemnification provided by the lessee to a lessor by recognizing a liability at

lease inception under the guidance in ASC 460.

Definitions 38

ASC 460-10-55-23A

This implementation guidance addresses the application of this Subtopic to the recognition and initial

measurement of a tax indemnification provided by a lessee to a lessor. Paragraph 460-10-25-4

requires that the lessee (guarantor) account for a tax indemnification provided to the lessor by

recognizing a liability at lease inception (which is also the inception of the indemnification clause).

Section 460-10-30 requires that the measurement objective of that initial recognition be the fair value of

the lessee’s obligation under the indemnification agreement.

1.8 Discount rate

To compute the present value of lease payments, a lessor should use a discount rate equal to the rate

implicit in the lease. A lessee, on the other hand, should compute the present value of lease payments by

using (a) the rate implicit in the lease if it can be readily determined, (b) the lessee’s incremental

borrowing rate, or (c) a risk-free rate, if the lessee is not a public business entity and it elects to use a risk-

free rate as an accounting policy.

Discount Rate for the Lease: For a lessee, the discount rate for the lease is the rate implicit in the lease

unless that rate cannot be readily determined. In that case, the lessee is required to use its incremental

borrowing rate. For a lessor, the discount rate for the lease is the rate implicit in the lease.

Rate Implicit in the Lease: The rate of interest that, at a given date, causes the aggregate present value

of (a) the lease payments and (b) the amount that a lessor expects to derive from the underlying asset

following the end of the lease term to equal the sum of (1) the fair value of the underlying asset minus

any related investment tax credit retained and expected to be realized by the lessor and (2) any deferred

initial direct costs of the lessor. However, if the rate determined in accordance with the preceding

sentence is less than zero, a rate implicit in the lease of zero shall be used.

Definitions 39

Figure 1.2: Rate implicit in the lease

1.8.1 Lessor discount rate

A lessor should compute the present value of lease payments using the rate implicit in the lease, based

on information available at the lease commencement date. The rate implicit in the lease is defined as the

rate that causes the aggregate present value of the lease payments and the lessor’s estimate of the

asset’s residual value at the end of the lease term to equal the sum of (1) the asset’s fair value, less any

investment tax credit retained and expected to be realized by the lessor, and (2) the lessor’s deferred

initial direct costs.

A lessor’s determination of whether initial direct costs are deferred depends on whether:

1. At the commencement date, the fair value of the underlying asset is different than its carrying amount.

2. The present-value calculation is being performed to determine whether a lease is a sales-type lease.

When calculating the rate implicit in the lease for purposes of determining whether a lease qualifies as a

sales-type lease, the lessor must assume that no initial direct costs will be deferred if, at the

commencement date, the fair value of the underlying asset is different than its carrying amount.

If a lessor determines that a lease is not a sales-type lease, then the lessor must presume that initial

direct costs are deferred when computing the rate implicit in the lease to determine whether the lease is a

direct financing lease.

For examples of how to calculate the rate implicit in the lease, refer to the examples in Section 6.1.2 for a

sales-type lease and Section 6.2.2 for a direct financing lease.

ASC 842-10-25-4

A lessor shall assess the criteria in paragraphs 842-10-25-2(d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1) using the rate

implicit in the lease. For purposes of assessing the criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(d), a lessor shall

assume that no initial direct costs will be deferred if, at the commencement date, the fair value of the

underlying asset is different from its carrying amount.

Fair value of asset

(net of investment tax

credit)

Deferred initial direct

costs

Present value of lease

payments

Present value of

expected residual

value

The rate at which:

Definitions 40

Grant Thornton insights: Discount rates associated with a direct financing lease

A lessor might use three different discount rates in the process of classifying and measuring a lease

that is ultimately classified as a direct financing lease.

The lessor uses the first discount rate to determine whether the lease should be classified as a sales-

type lease. For this purpose, the rate implicit in the lease is calculated assuming no initial direct costs

will be deferred if, at the commencement date, the fair value of the underlying asset is different than its

carrying amount.

If the lease is not a sales-type lease, the lessor uses the second discount rate to recalculate the

present value of the sum of the lease payments, including any third-party residual value guarantee, to

determine whether the lease is a direct financing lease or an operating lease. For this purpose, the

lessor must presume that initial direct costs are deferred, regardless of whether the lessor presumed

they were deferred in calculating the first rate. If the lease is a direct financing lease, this rate should be

used as the discount rate to initially measure the components of the net investment in the lease.

A lessor uses the third discount rate to determine the amount of periodic interest income to recognize,

which reflects the deferred profit component, if any, of a direct financing lease. This discount rate

reconciles the net investment in the lease at lease commencement (net of deferred selling profit) with

the expected residual value of the asset at the end of the lease.

1.8.2 Lessee discount rate

A lessee should use the rate implicit in the lease as the discount rate if that rate is readily determinable. If

the lessee cannot readily determine the rate implicit in the lease, it should use its incremental borrowing

rate as the discount rate. Lessees that are not public business entities have the option to use a risk-free

rate as the discount rate for the lease.

ASC 842-20-30-2

The discount rate for the lease initially used to determine the present value of the lease payments for a

lessee is calculated on the basis of information available at the commencement date.

ASC 842-20-30-3

A lessee should use the rate implicit in the lease whenever that rate is readily determinable. If the rate

implicit in the lease is not readily determinable, a lessee uses its incremental borrowing rate. A lessee

that is not a public business entity is permitted to use a risk-free discount rate for the lease, determined

using a period comparable with that of the lease term, as an accounting policy election for all leases.

Rate implicit in the lease

A lessee should use the rate implicit in the lease if the lessee can readily determine that rate. In

paragraph BC132 of ASU 2016-02, the Board provides some insight into how it views the notion of

“readily determinable” within the context of substantive substitution rights, which are relevant for

Definitions 41

identifying leases under ASC 842. In particular, the Board explains that a customer (potential lessee) is

not expected to exert undue effort in determining whether a supplier has substantive substitution rights.

Accordingly, we believe that a lessee need not exert undue effort in obtaining the rate implicit in a lease.

Grant Thornton insights: Lessee’s ability to estimate the rate implicit in the lease

The rate implicit in the lease is defined as the rate that causes the aggregate present value of the lease

payments plus the lessor’s estimate of the asset’s residual value at the end of the lease term to equal

the sum of (1) the asset’s fair value, less any investment tax credit retained that the lessor expects to

realize, and (2) the lessor’s deferred initial direct costs.

In our view, a lessee will be unable to readily determine the rate implicit in a lease in most cases,

unless the rate is provided by the lessor. The calculation of the rate implicit in the lease requires lessor-

specific inputs, including the lessor’s estimate of the underlying asset’s residual value at the end of the

lease term and the amount of initial direct costs incurred and deferred by the lessor.

For well capitalized, creditworthy lessees, the rate implicit in the lease might be greater than the

lessee’s incremental borrowing rate. Accordingly, practitioners have questioned whether it is

appropriate for a lessee to develop estimates of the underlying asset’s residual value and the lessor’s

deferred initial direct costs to compute the rate implicit in the lease, since using a discount rate higher

than the lessee’s incremental borrowing rate would result in a smaller lease liability balance for the

lessee. For example, a lessee could hire a valuation specialist to develop an estimate of the underlying

asset’s residual value at the end of the lease term by using an accepted “industry standard” technique

and data set, which would be a similar to the process and inputs used by the lessor.

In our view, it would not be appropriate for a lessee to use its own estimates of residual value and

deferred initial direct costs to compute the rate implicit in the lease. The guidance in ASC 842-20-30-3

clearly states that if the rate implicit in the lease is not “readily determinable,” a lessee must use either

its incremental borrowing rate or, if it’s a nonpublic business entity, a risk-free rate (if it chooses) as its

discount rate.

Incremental borrowing rate

If a lessee cannot readily determine the rate implicit in the lease, it should use its incremental borrowing

rate to compute the present value of the lease payments. A lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is the

rate of interest that the lessee would pay to borrow an amount equal to the lease payments on a

collateralized basis over a similar term in a similar economic environment. Refer to Appendix A for more

information about determining the incremental borrowing rate.

At the crossroads: Incremental borrowing rate

Under legacy GAAP, an “incremental borrowing rate” is defined as the rate that a lessee would use to

fund the purchase of the underlying asset at the inception of the lease.

Under ASC 842, the “incremental borrowing rate” is the rate of interest a lessee would pay to borrow

an amount equal to the lease payments on a collateralized basis over a similar term in a similar

economic environment.

Definitions 42

Therefore, when adopting ASC 842, lessees need to reconsider how they compute the incremental

borrowing rate. Under ASC 842, it is no longer acceptable to use a hypothetical borrowing rate that

would be incurred to finance the purchase of the underlying asset.

Risk-free rate (for lessees that are not public business entities)

Lessees that are not public business entities can make an accounting policy election to use a risk-free

rate to compute the present value of the lease payments. The risk-free rate should be determined at

lease commencement using a period similar to the term of the lease. If this election is made, the lessee

must use the risk free rate for all leases.

Determining the incremental borrowing rate on a portfolio basis

In paragraph BC120 of ASU 2016-02, the Board notes that a portfolio approach may be used to apply the

guidance in ASC 842, provided that an entity reasonably expects that the results of applying ASC 842 to

the portfolio would not differ materially from applying it to individual leases. The Board cautioned that

judgment is required in determining the size and composition of the portfolio(s) to ensure that the results

are not materially different than a lease-by-lease application. The Board does not expect entities to

perform a quantitative evaluation to support using a portfolio approach. Paragraph BC121 of ASU 2016-

02 indicates that a portfolio approach may also be applied to calculating estimates, such as the discount

rate, and to determining and reassessing the lease term.

Paragraph BC201 of ASU 2016-02 discusses using the portfolio approach to apply a single incremental

borrowing rate to a portfolio of leases, if a reasonable portfolio can be determined. A “reasonable

portfolio” consists of leases that share common key characteristics, such as lease terms and underlying

assets.

The Board also notes in paragraph BC201 that there are situations in which a subsidiary might use the

parent’s incremental borrowing rate, such as when the subsidiary lacks a separate treasury function,

which leads to the parent, through the process of negotiating the lease, guaranteeing the lessee’s

payments to the lessor. In such a case, the Board noted that the pricing of the lease is more significantly

influenced by the credit standing of the parent rather than that of the subsidiary.

The following example from ASC 842 illustrates the guidance for a lessee on using a portfolio approach to

establish the discount rate for a lease.

Example 2—Portfolio Approach to Establishing the Discount Rate for the Lease

ASC 842-20-55-18

Lessee, a public entity, is the parent of several consolidated subsidiaries. During the current period,

2 subsidiaries entered into a total of 400 individual leases of large computer servers, each with terms

ranging between 4 and 5 years and annual payments ranging between $60,000 and $100,000,

depending on the hardware capacity of the servers. In aggregate, total lease payments for these leases

amount to $30 million.

ASC 842-20-55-19

The individual lease contracts do not provide information about the rate implicit in the lease. Lessee is

BBB credit rated and actively raises debt in the corporate bond market. Both subsidiaries are unrated

Definitions 43

and do not actively engage in treasury operations in their respective markets. On the basis of its credit

rating and the collateral represented by the leased servers, Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate on

$60,000 through $100,000 (the range of lease payments on each of the 400 leases) would be

approximately 4 percent. Lessee notes that 5-year zero-coupon U.S. Treasury instruments are

currently yielding 1.7 percent (a risk-free rate). Because Lessee conducts its treasury operations

centrally (that is, at the consolidated group level), it is reasonably assumed that consideration of the

group credit standing factored into how each lease was priced.

ASC 842-20-55-20

Lessee may determine the discount rate for the lease for the 400 individual leases entered into on

different dates throughout the current period by using a portfolio approach. That is, Lessee can apply a

single discount rate to the portfolio of new leases. This is because during the period, the new leases

are all of similar terms (four to five years), and Lessee’s credit rating and the interest rate environment

are stable. Because the pricing of the lease is influenced by the credit standing and profile of Lessee

rather than the subsidiaries (that is, because Lessee conducts treasury operations for the consolidated

group), Lessee concludes that its incremental borrowing rate of 4 percent is an appropriate discount

rate for each of the 400 leases entered into by Lessee’s 2 subsidiaries during the period. Because

Lessee is a public entity, it is not permitted to use a risk-free discount rate.

1.9 Fair value

In measuring the fair value of the underlying asset in a lease, an entity must consider the definition of fair

value in ASC 820, Fair Value Measurement. The ASC Master Glossary defines fair value as:

Fair Value(2): The price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly

transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

The Master Glossary defines “market participants” as follows.

Market Participants: Buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or

liability that have all of the following characteristics:

a. They are independent of each other, that is, they are not related parties, although the price in a

related-party transaction may be used as an input to a fair value measurement if the reporting entity

has evidence that the transaction was entered into at market terms

b. They are knowledgeable, having a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the

transaction using all available information, including information that might be obtained through due

diligence efforts that are usual and customary

c. They are able to enter into a transaction for the asset or liability

d. They are willing to enter into a transaction for the asset or liability, that is, they are motivated but not

forced or otherwise compelled to do so.

Definitions 44

Furthermore, an “orderly transaction” is defined as:

Orderly Transaction: A transaction that assumes exposure to the market for a period before the

measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving

such assets or liabilities; it is not a forced transaction (for example, a forced liquidation or distress sale).

Entities are required to estimate the fair value of the underlying asset when classifying a lease if it is

practicable to do so. For the purposes of this guidance, it is “practicable” to make an estimate if a

reasonable estimate can be determined without undue cost or effort. What is considered practicable

depends on the relevant facts and circumstances in each situation, and could vary from entity to entity or

from asset to asset. If an entity determines that measuring the fair value of the underlying asset is not

practicable, the entity should exclude the fair value criteria in ASC 842-10-25-2(d) and ASC 842-10-25-

3(b)(1) from its analysis of lease classification.

ASC 842-10-55-3

In some cases, it may not be practicable for an entity to determine the fair value of an underlying asset.

In the context of this Topic, practicable means that a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made

without undue cost or effort. It is a dynamic concept; what is practicable for one entity may not be

practicable for another, what is practicable in one period may not be practicable in another, and what is

practicable for one underlying asset (or class of underlying asset) may not be practicable for another. In

those cases in which it is not practicable for an entity to determine the fair value of an underlying asset,

lease classification should be determined without consideration of the criteria in paragraphs 842-10-25-

2(d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1).

Also, for purposes of evaluating the fair value classification criteria in ASC 842-10-25-2(d) and ASC 842-

10-25-3(b)(1), the calculation of the fair value of the underlying asset should be reduced by any related

investment tax credit that the lessor retains and expects to realize.

ASC 842-10-55-8

When evaluating the lease classification criteria in paragraphs 842-10-25-2(d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1),

the fair value of the underlying asset should be reduced by any related investment tax credit retained

by the lessor and expected to be realized by the lessor.

1.9.1 Lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers

Lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers are required to use cost, adjusted for any volume or trade

discounts, as the fair value of the underlying asset when classifying and measuring leases. If a significant

Definitions 45

amount of time has elapsed between the date the asset was acquired and the date the lease

commences, these lessors, which typically include financial institutions and captive finance entities, must

determine the asset’s fair value in accordance with ASC 820.

ASC 842-30-55-17A

Notwithstanding the definition of fair value, if a lessor is not a manufacturer or a dealer, the fair value of

the underlying asset at lease commencement is its cost, reflecting any volume or trade discounts that

may apply. However, if there has been a significant lapse of time between the acquisition of the

underlying asset and lease commencement, the definition of fair value shall be applied.

1.10 Master lease agreements

A master lease agreement governs the rights to use multiple assets over the term of the agreement. Each

asset underlying a master lease agreement represents a separate lease component, unless it meets the

criteria to be combined with other lease components outlined in ASC 842-10-15-28. Furthermore, each of

the assets underlying a master lease agreement could be made available to the lessee at a different date.

Therefore, a master lease agreement may contain multiple lease components, each with a unique

commencement date.

A master lease may specify a minimum number of assets or a dollar value for the assets that the lessor

must transfer to the lessee during the life of the agreement. If this is the case, the parties do not account

for each transfer as a lease modification. Instead, the parties apply the guidance on separating

components of a contract and allocating contract consideration in ASC 842-10-15.

A master lease may provide the right, but not the obligation, for a lessee to obtain additional assets under

the agreement, or it may not specify a minimum quantity or dollar value of assets that the lessee is

required to take control of over the life of the agreement. If this is the case, the lessee accounts for each

additional underlying asset that it takes control of over the lease term as a lease modification using the

guidance on assessing lease modifications in ASC 842-10-25. Note that such a modification might require

accounting for the incremental right of use as a separate lease component.

ASC 842-10-55-17

Under a master lease agreement, the lessee may gain control over the use of additional underlying

assets during the term of the agreement. If the agreement specifies a minimum number of units or

dollar value of equipment, the lessee obtaining control over the use of those additional underlying

assets is not a lease modification. Rather, the entity (whether a lessee or a lessor) applies the

guidance in paragraphs 842-10-15-28 through 15-42 when identifying the separate lease components

and allocating the consideration in the contract to those components. Paragraph 842-10-55-22 explains

that a master lease agreement may, therefore, result in multiple commencement dates.

ASC 842-10-55-18

If the master lease agreement permits the lessee to gain control over the use of additional underlying

assets during the term of the agreement but does not commit the lessee to doing so, the lessee’s

Definitions 46

taking control over the use of an additional underlying asset should be accounted for as a lease

modification in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-25-8 through 25-18.

ASC 842-10-55-22

There may be multiple commencement dates resulting from a master lease agreement. That is

because a master lease agreement may cover a significant number of underlying assets, each of which

are made available for use by the lessee on different dates. Although a master lease agreement may

specify that the lessee must take a minimum number of units or dollar value of equipment, there will be

multiple commencement dates unless all of the underlying assets subject to that minimum are made

available for use by the lessee on the same date.

Lease identification 47

2. Lease identification

The guidance in ASC 842 applies to contracts that convey the right to control the use of identified

property, plant, and equipment for a period of time in exchange for consideration. For a contract to qualify

as a lease under ASC 842, a customer must have both the right to receive substantially all of the

economic benefits from using an asset and the right to control the asset’s use.

2.1 Scope of leasing guidance

A contract that conveys a right to control the use of identified property, plant, or equipment for a period of

time in exchange for consideration is within the scope of ASC 842. Accordingly, contracts that convey the

right to use an asset other than property, plant, or equipment are accounted for under other guidance.

Examples of these types of contracts, and the relevant sections of the Codification, are summarized in

Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Contracts accounted for under other guidance

Contract

Applicable guidance

Right to use intangible assets

ASC 350, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other

Right to explore for or use minerals, oil, natural

gas, and similar nonregenerative resources,

including (1) an intangible right to explore for

natural resources, and (2) a right to use land

containing natural resources, unless other rights

beyond just the right to explore is included in the

right to use the land. Excludes equipment used

to explore for these natural resources.

ASC 930, Extractive Activities – Mining, and

ASC 932, Extractive Activities – Oil and Gas

Right to use biological assets, including timber

ASC 905, Agriculture

Right to use inventory

ASC 330, Inventory

Right to use assets under construction.

Note that an entity should first determine whether

the construction project is within the scope of

ASC 842-40 on sale-leaseback transactions; refer

to Section 7 for information about sale-leaseback

transactions.

ASC 360, Property, Plant, and Equipment

Lease identification 48

ASC 842-10-15-1

An entity shall apply this Topic to all leases, including subleases. Because a lease is defined as a

contract, or part of a contract, that conveys the right to control the use of identified property, plant, or

equipment (an identified asset) for a period of time in exchange for consideration, this Topic does not

apply to any of the following:

a. Leases of intangible assets (see Topic 350: Intangibles—Goodwill and Other).

b. Leases to explore for or use minerals, oil, natural gas, and similar nonregenerative resources

(see Topics 930: Extractive Activities—Mining, and 932: Extractive Activities—Oil and Gas). This

includes the intangible right to explore for those natural resources and rights to use the land in

which those natural resources are contained (that is, unless those rights of use include more than

the right to explore for natural resources), but not equipment used to explore for the natural

resources.

c. Leases of biological assets, including timber (see Topic 905: Agriculture).

d. Leases of inventory (see Topic 330: Inventory).

e. Leases of assets under construction (see Topic 360: Property, Plant, and Equipment).

At the crossroads: Scope of leasing guidance

The scope of the lease accounting guidance under ASC 842 is intended to be similar to the scope of

the guidance under legacy GAAP (ASC 840). The new guidance specifies the same exclusions and

exceptions, and introduces no major changes to whether long-term land leases, leases of assets other

than fixed or capital assets, service concession arrangements, repurchase agreements, and other

types of contracts are analyzed under the leasing guidance or other GAAP.

The question of whether a contract is within scope of the leasing guidance is particularly important for

lessees to consider, because operating lease accounting for lessees is changing dramatically under

ASC 842. Under the new guidance, lessees are required to recognize assets and liabilities on their

statements of financial position for nearly all leases, including operating leases, which have historically

been accounted for “off-balance sheet.”

2.1.1 Lease versus service contract

In some circumstances, it can be challenging for entities to determine whether an arrangement is a

service contract or a lease. Service contracts and leases give rise to different rights and obligations,

which drives the differences in accounting for the two types of contracts. In paragraph BC40 through

BC43 of ASU 2016-02, the Board discusses some of the characteristics of each type of arrangement,

which are summarized in Figure 2.2 below.

Lease identification 49

Figure 2.2: Lease versus service contract characteristics

Lease characteristics

Service contract characteristics

Lessor fulfills its obligation by transferring the

right to use an asset at the commencement date

Supplier fulfills its obligation by performing

throughout the contract period, and its

performance to date does not continue to benefit

the customer throughout the remaining service

period

Lessee continues to benefit throughout the lease

term from lessor’s initial performance of making

the asset available for the lessee’s use upon

lease commencement

Customer obtains economic benefits from the

service only as the supplier performs

Lessee cannot avoid making lease payments

without breaching the contract once the right to

use an asset has been transferred at lease

commencement

Customer typically has an obligation to pay for

the services as they are provided

Embedded leases

A service or other contract may contain the right to use an underlying asset. The right to use an

underlying asset embedded in a contract must be analyzed to determine if it meets the definition of a

lease. If the right of use meets the definition of a lease, then it is accounted for under ASC 842. Common

arrangements that contain embedded leases include

 Outsourced manufacturing arrangements that may grant exclusive use of equipment or space in the

manufacturer’s facility

 Arrangements that bundle a service and a device

 Sale of consumables with “free” equipment

 Data center and other outsourced information technology arrangements that may provide exclusive

use of assets

2.1.2 Service concession arrangements

A service concession arrangement is a contract in which an entity agrees to operate a public sector

entity’s infrastructure, such as a toll road or an airport. Such contracts may require the entity to construct,

upgrade, or maintain that infrastructure. Specifically, a service concession arrangement is a contract in

which a grantor (a public-sector entity) (1) controls or is able to modify or approve the scope of services

the operating entity provides, who the services are provided to, and the pricing, and (2) controls the

residual interest in the infrastructure after the agreement ends. While ASC 842 does not address whether

service concession arrangements are within its scope, the guidance in ASC 853, Service Concession

Arrangements, explicitly precludes service concession arrangements from being accounted for under the

leasing guidance in ASC 842.

Lease identification 50

ASC 853-10-15-2

The guidance in this Topic applies to the accounting by operating entities of a service concession

arrangement under which a public-sector entity grantor enters into a contract with an operating entity to

operate the grantor’s infrastructure. The operating entity also may provide the construction, upgrading,

or maintenance services of the grantor’s infrastructure.

ASC 853-10-15-3

A public-sector entity includes a governmental body or an entity to which the responsibility to provide

public service has been delegated. In a service concession arrangement, both of the following

conditions exist:

a. The grantor controls or has the ability to modify or approve the services that the operating entity

must provide with the infrastructure, to whom it must provide them, and at what price.

b. The grantor controls, through ownership, beneficial entitlement, or otherwise, any residual interest

in the infrastructure at the end of the term of the arrangement.

ASC 853-10-25-2

The infrastructure that is the subject of a service concession arrangement within the scope of this Topic

shall not be recognized as property, plant, and equipment of the operating entity. Service concession

arrangements within the scope of this Topic are not within the scope of Topic 842 on leases.

2.1.3 Sales with repurchase rights

Certain sales agreements provide the seller with an option or an obligation to repurchase the same asset

that was sold, an asset that is substantially the same as the asset sold, or another asset that is a

component of the original asset sold. Sales contracts with such repurchase rights are evaluated under the

revenue guidance in ASC 606 and, in certain circumstances, that guidance will require the arrangement

to be accounted for as a lease.

According to ASC 606, if a contract includes a forward (a seller’s obligation to repurchase an asset) or a

call option (a seller’s right to repurchase an asset), the seller should account for the contract in one of two

ways:

 As a lease if it can or must repurchase the asset for an amount that is less than the original selling

price and the contract is not part of a sale-leaseback transaction

 As a financing arrangement if it can or must repurchase the asset for an amount that is greater than

or equal to the original selling price

While the customer may have physical possession of the asset, the customer does not have control of the

asset if its ability to direct the use of, and to obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the

asset is limited due to the seller’s repurchase obligation or right.

If a customer is granted the right to require the seller to repurchase the asset (a put option) at a price that

is less than the original selling price, the seller should assess whether the customer has a significant

economic incentive to exercise this right. This assessment takes into consideration various factors,

including the relationship between the repurchase price and the expected market value of the asset at the

date of repurchase. If the repurchase price is expected to significantly exceed the asset’s then-current

Lease identification 51

market value, a significant economic incentive exists for the customer to exercise its put option. The

agreement is then accounted for as a lease because the customer is effectively paying the seller for the

right to use the asset for a period of time, unless the contract is a part of a sale-leaseback arrangement,

in which case, the agreement is accounted for as a financing arrangement. See Section 7 for a discussion

about accounting for sale-leaseback transactions.

If the customer does not have a significant economic incentive to exercise the put option, the seller

accounts for the agreement as a sale with a right of return under ASC 606.

If a contract grants the customer a put option, and if the repurchase price of the asset is equal to or

greater than its original selling price and more than the asset’s expected market value, the contract is

accounted for as a financing arrangement under ASC 606. In such circumstances, the seller continues to

recognize the asset and a liability initially measured at the asset’s selling price.

Figure 2.3: Accounting for repurchase rights and obligations

ASC 606-10-55-68

If an entity has an obligation or a right to repurchase the asset (a forward or a call option), a customer

does not obtain control of the asset because the customer is limited in its ability to direct the use of,

and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset even though the customer may

have physical possession of the asset. Consequently, the entity should account for the contract as

either of the following:

Lease identification 52

a. A lease in accordance with Topic 842 on leases, if the entity can or must repurchase the asset for

an amount that is less than the original selling price of the asset unless the contract is part of a sale

and leaseback transaction. If the contract is part of a sale and leaseback transaction, the entity

should account for the contract as a financing arrangement and not as a sale and leaseback

transaction in accordance with Subtopic 842-40.

b. A financing arrangement in accordance with paragraph 606-10-55-70, if the entity can or must

repurchase the asset for an amount that is equal to or more than the original selling price of the

asset.

ASC 606-10-55-72

If an entity has an obligation to repurchase the asset at the customer’s request (a put option) at a price

that is lower than the original selling price of the asset, the entity should consider at contract inception

whether the customer has a significant economic incentive to exercise that right. The customer’s

exercising of that right results in the customer effectively paying the entity consideration for the right to

use a specified asset for a period of time. Therefore, if the customer has a significant economic

incentive to exercise that right, the entity should account for the agreement as a lease in accordance

with Topic 842 on leases unless the contract is part of a sale and leaseback transaction. If the contract

is part of a sale and leaseback transaction, the entity should account for the contract as a financing

arrangement and not as a sale and leaseback transaction in accordance with Subtopic 842-40.

2.2 Definition of a lease

The Codification defines a contract as an agreement between two or more parties that creates

enforceable rights and obligations. The parties to a contract must evaluate its terms to determine whether

it contains a lease at the inception date, which is the date the contract is executed. ASC 842 defines a

“lease” as a contract or part of a contract that conveys the right to control the use of identified property,

plant, and equipment for a period of time in exchange for consideration.

Contract: An agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations.

Lease: A contract, or part of a contract, that conveys the right to control the use of identified property,

plant, or equipment (an identified asset) for a period of time in exchange for consideration.

ASC 842-10-15-2

At inception of a contract, an entity shall determine whether that contract is or contains a lease.

ASC 842-10-15-3

A contract is or contains a lease if the contract conveys the right to control the use of identified

property, plant, or equipment (an identified asset) for a period of time in exchange for consideration. A

period of time may be described in terms of the amount of use of an identified asset (for example, the

number of production units that an item of equipment will be used to produce).

Lease identification 53

An entity determines whether a contract conveys the right to control the use of an asset by assessing

whether the customer has both (a) the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from using

the asset, and (b) the right to direct the use of the asset throughout the period of use. If both of these

criteria are met, along with the other components of the definition of a lease under ASC 842 (that

is, an identified asset and period of time), then a contract is or contains a lease. In making these

determinations, an entity should consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances. After the inception

date, an entity is not required to reassess whether a contract contains a lease unless there is a change to

the terms and conditions of the contract.

ASC 842-10-15-4

To determine whether a contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset (see

paragraphs 842-10-15-17 through 15-26) for a period of time, an entity shall assess whether,

throughout the period of use, the customer has both of the following:

a. The right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the identified asset (see

paragraphs 842-10-15-17 through 15-19)

b. The right to direct the use of the identified asset (see paragraphs 842-10-15-20 through 15-26).

If the customer in the contract is a joint operation or a joint arrangement, an entity shall consider

whether the joint operation or joint arrangement has the right to control the use of an identified asset

throughout the period of use.

ASC 842-10-15-6

An entity shall reassess whether a contract is or contains a lease only if the terms and conditions of the

contract are changed.

ASC 842-10-15-7

In making the determination about whether a contract is or contains a lease, an entity shall consider all

relevant facts and circumstances.

Grant Thornton insights: Identifying a lease in a joint operation

In certain industries, such as oil and gas exploration, multiple entities often enter into an arrangement

to jointly undertake an activity, sometimes involving the formation of a separate legal entity. If

completing the joint activity requires the use of leased equipment, such as a drilling rig, it is important

to determine whether one of the entities participating in the arrangement—or the arrangement itself—is

the customer from the equipment owner’s perspective. The customer must determine whether its

contract with the equipment owner meets the definition of a lease.

ASC 842-10-15-4 clarifies that a joint arrangement, even one not structured as a separate legal entity,

could be a customer with respect to a contract that involves the use of an identified asset. In other

words, lease accounting cannot be avoided by conveying the right to control the use of an identified

Lease identification 54

asset to a joint arrangement that is not structured as a separate legal entity (a non-entity joint

arrangement).

In a non-entity joint arrangement, it is common for one of the parties to the arrangement (the operator)

to directly enter into a contract with the owner of an asset, and to use that asset to carry out the joint

arrangement’s activities. In these scenarios, it is important for the operator to consider whether it is

subleasing the asset to the joint arrangement, in which case, the operator must separately account for

the head lease with the asset owner and the sublease with the joint arrangement. Further complicating

the accounting for these arrangements is the fact that industry-specific guidance in U.S. GAAP might

require proportionate consolidation of the joint arrangement by its participants. Each non-operator

would then apply the proportionate consolidation guidance to record its portion of the lease liability and

right-of-use asset of the joint arrangement.

Figure 2.4: Lease identification flowchart

The following flowchart, adapted from ASC 842-10-55-1, illustrates the process for determining whether a

contract contains a lease.

Lease identification 55

2.2.1 Period of time

A key characteristic of a lease is that it conveys the right to use an asset for a certain period of time. That

period of time, known as the “period of use” in ASC 842, is the total time during which an asset is used to

fulfill a contract with a customer, including the sum of any nonconsecutive periods of time. ASC 842-10-

15-3 explains that the period of use might be expressed in terms of how much or how long the asset is

used rather than a fixed period of time. For example, a contract might convey the right to use a piece of

equipment for whatever period of time is necessary for the equipment to produce one thousand units of

output.

It is also not necessary for the period of use to consist of a single continuous period of time. If a contract

provides the right to use an asset over nonconsecutive periods of time, the period of use is the sum of

those nonconsecutive periods.

Lease identification 56

Period of use: The total period of time that an asset is used to fulfill a contract with a customer (including

the sum of any nonconsecutive periods of time).

There is a key distinction between the period of use and the contract term. The contract term spans the

period of time between the inception date of the contract and its termination, while the period of use is the

subset of the contract term during which the customer (lessee) has the right to use the underlying asset.

Determining whether a contract meets the definition of a lease depends on an assessment of the

customer’s rights during the period of use. Therefore, the period of use might comprise only a portion of

the term of a contract that is or contains a lease, and might commence at a later date than the inception

date of the contract.

For example, an entity might enter into a 36-month contract (January 1, 20X7 through December 31,

20X9) with a building owner to lease certain office space only during 24 months of the contract term, as

illustrated in Figure 2.5. From April 1 through December 31, 20X8, the lessor leases the space to other

tenants. In this example, the contract term is 36 months, but the period of use is only 24 months,

consisting of two nonconsecutive 12-month periods. For purposes of determining whether this contract

contains a lease under ASC 842, the parties must focus on the rights conveyed to the customer during

the period of use rather than throughout the contract term.

Figure 2.5 Components of the contract term

ASC 842-10-15-5

If the customer has the right to control the use of an identified asset for only a portion of the term of the

contract, the contract contains a lease for that portion of the term.

2.2.2 Inception date versus commencement date

Understanding the distinction between the inception date of a contract and the commencement date of a

lease is critical to properly identifying and accounting for leases under ASC 842. An entity must determine

whether a contract is or contains a lease at the contract inception date, which is the date when the

contract is executed. The commencement date of the lease is the date when a lessor makes an

underlying asset available for the lessee’s use and might occur after the contract inception date. Under

Lease identification 57

ASC 842, a lease component in a contract must be measured and recognized at the commencement

date of the lease.

In many leases, the inception date matches the commencement date of the lease, meaning the leased

asset is available for the lessee’s use concurrently with executing the contract. However, in some cases,

there is a period of time that elapses between the inception date and the commencement date of the

lease.

Figure 2.5 illustrates a lease that commences three months after the inception date. In this example, the

lessee and lessor must determine whether the contract is or contains a lease on January 1, 20X7.

However, they would not measure and begin accounting for the lease until April 1, 20X7, which is the

commencement date of the lease.

See Section 1.1 for additional information about the commencement date of a lease.

2.3 Identified asset

A lease must specify, either explicitly or implicitly, an identified asset. When an asset is not explicitly

identified in the contract, an entity must determine whether the contract implicitly identifies an asset by

simply requiring the use of an asset to fulfill the contract from its commencement. In other words, even if

the customer cannot identify the particular asset that will be used to fulfill the contract, the fact that an

asset is required to fulfill the contract is sufficient to implicitly identify an asset.

ASC 842-10-15-9

An asset typically is identified by being explicitly specified in a contract. However, an asset also can be

identified by being implicitly specified at the time that the asset is made available for use by the

customer.

ASC 842 clarifies that if a supplier has a substantive right to substitute the asset throughout the period of

use, there is no identified asset and the contract does not contain a lease. The FASB reasoned that the

supplier, and not the customer, controls how the asset is used if it has a substantive right to substitute an

asset throughout the period of use, thereby deciding for what purpose a particular asset is used.

Figure 2.6 illustrates the process for determining whether a contract involves an identified asset and, if so,

the unit of account that corresponds to the identified asset. In other words, if a contract involves the use

of an identified asset, it is necessary to determine whether the identified asset is a portion of an asset (for

example, the floor of a building) or the entire asset (for example, an entire multi-unit building).

Lease identification 58

Figure 2.6: Identified asset flowchart

The concept of an identified asset might seem broad considering an asset could be implicitly specified in

a contract. However, the population of contracts that actually contain identified assets is narrowed

somewhat by the requirement that customers and suppliers must consider whether a contract contains

substantive substitution rights, as explained in the following section.

2.3.1 Substitution rights

A contract does not specify an identified asset if the supplier has a substantive substitution right that can

be exercised throughout the period of use. A substitution right is considered “substantive” if the supplier

both (1) has the practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the period of use, and

(2) would benefit economically from exercising this right.

For example, a supplier that owns a fleet of railcars enters into a contract with a customer to transport the

customer’s goods via railcar for a specified period of time. If the supplier has the practical ability to

substitute certain railcars for other cars (that is, alternative cars are available and the supplier does not

Lease identification 59

require the customer’s permission to substitute them) and would benefit economically from exercising its

substitution right (for example, using railcars that are located closest to the point of origin of a shipment),

then the contract would not be a lease because it lacks an identified asset.

ASC 842-10-15-10

Even if an asset is specified, a customer does not have the right to use an identified asset if the

supplier has the substantive right to substitute the asset throughout the period of use. A supplier’s right

to substitute an asset is substantive only if both of the following conditions exist:

a. The supplier has the practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the period of use

(for example, the customer cannot prevent the supplier from substituting an asset, and alternative

assets are readily available to the supplier or could be sourced by the supplier within a reasonable

period of time).

b. The supplier would benefit economically from the exercise of its right to substitute the asset (that

is, the economic benefits associated with substituting the asset are expected to exceed the costs

associated with substituting the asset).

Rights that allow the supplier to substitute an asset for repairs or maintenance, to replace an asset that is

not functioning properly, or to provide a newly available technical upgrade to the original asset are not

substantive substitution rights.

ASC 842-10-15-14

The supplier’s right or obligation to substitute an asset for repairs or maintenance, if the asset is not

operating properly, or if a technical upgrade becomes available, does not preclude the customer from

having the right to use an identified asset.

If a substitution right is contingent on the occurrence of a future event that, at the inception of the

contract, is considered unlikely to occur, then an entity should exclude that contingent right from its

analysis of substitution rights in the contract. ASC 842 gives four examples of contingent events that

would not be considered likely to occur as of the contract inception date:

 A future customer agrees to pay an above-market rate to use the asset.

 New technology is introduced that was not substantially developed at contract inception.

 The customer’s use or performance of the asset differs from what was likely at contract inception.

 The market price of the asset changes significantly from what was expected at contract inception.

If a contract contains a supplier substitution right that is triggered by any of these events or by other

events that are deemed not likely to occur at the inception date, then that substitution right is not

substantive and would not preclude the contract from containing an identified asset.

Lease identification 60

ASC 842-10-15-11

An entity’s evaluation of whether a supplier’s substitution right is substantive is based on facts and

circumstances at inception of the contract and shall exclude consideration of future events that, at

inception, are not considered likely to occur. Examples of future events that, at inception of the

contract, would not be considered likely to occur and, thus, should be excluded from the evaluation

include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. An agreement by a future customer to pay an above-market rate for use of the asset

b. The introduction of new technology that is not substantially developed at inception of the contract

c. A substantial difference between the customer’s use of the asset, or the performance of the asset

and the use or performance considered likely at inception of the contract

d. A substantial difference between the market price of the asset during the period of use and the

market price considered likely at inception of the contract.

A right to substitute an asset located on the supplier’s premises is more likely to be substantive than a

right to substitute an asset located on the customer’s premises or elsewhere, because the cost of

substituting an asset on the supplier’s premises would likely be lower than the cost of substituting an

asset on the customer’s premises or elsewhere.

If a supplier can exercise its right to substitute an asset only on or after a particular date or when a

specified event occurs, then the substitution right is not substantive because the supplier lacks the

practical ability to substitute alternative assets throughout the period of use.

ASC 842-10-15-12

If the asset is located at the customer’s premises or elsewhere, the costs associated with substitution

are generally higher than when located at the supplier’s premises and, therefore, are more likely to

exceed the benefits associated with substituting the asset.

ASC 842-10-15-13

If the supplier has a right or an obligation to substitute the asset only on or after either a particular date

or the occurrence of a specified event, the supplier does not have the practical ability to substitute

alternative assets throughout the period of use.

Under ASC 842, customers are not required to take exhaustive measures to determine whether a

contract contains a substantive substitution right. If a customer cannot readily determine whether a

substantive substitution right exists, then it should assume that the contract lacks a substantive

substitution right.

Lease identification 61

ASC 842-10-15-15

If the customer cannot readily determine whether the supplier has a substantive substitution right, the

customer shall presume that any substitution right is not substantive.

Substantive substitution rights

A contract to use a copy machine for a period of time allows the supplier to replace the machine under

certain circumstances, such as when the machine isn’t operating properly. When evaluating whether

this substitution right is substantive, the customer considers whether the supplier has the practical ability

to exercise its substitution right and would benefit economically from doing so.

First, according to ASC 842-10-15-14, a supplier’s right to substitute the asset when it is not operating

properly is not a substantive substitution right. To the extent that the supplier has the right to substitute

the asset in other circumstances, it is important to note that the copy machine is located on the

customer’s premises, and the supplier is unable to exercise its substitution right without the customer’s

permission to access the machine, which limits the supplier’s practical ability to exercise its substitution

right. In addition, the asset’s location makes substitution more costly for the supplier than if the asset

was located on the supplier’s premises. Therefore, the customer determines that it is unlikely the

supplier would benefit from exercising its substitution right given the costs involved with sending

personnel to the customer’s premises to substitute new equipment.

Based on this assessment, the customer determines that the supplier’s substitution right is not

substantive. If, alternatively, the customer lacks sufficient information to readily determine whether the

supplier might benefit from exercising its right to substitute the copier, it should assume that the right is

not substantive.

The following example from ASC 842-10-55 illustrates a contract in which substitution rights exist, but are

determined not to be substantive.

Example 7 - Aircraft

ASC 842-10-55-92

Customer enters into a contract with an aircraft owner (Supplier) for the use of an explicitly specified

aircraft for a two-year period. The contract details the interior and exterior specifications for the aircraft.

ASC 842-10-55-93

There are contractual and legal restrictions in the contract on where the aircraft can fly. Subject to

those restrictions, Customer determines where and when the aircraft will fly and which passengers and

cargo will be transported on the aircraft.

ASC 842-10-55-94

Lease identification 62

Supplier is responsible for operating the aircraft, using its own crew. Customer is prohibited from hiring

another operator for the aircraft or operating the aircraft itself during the term of the contract.

ASC 842-10-55-95

Supplier is permitted to substitute the aircraft at any time during the two-year period and must

substitute the aircraft if it is not working. Any substitute aircraft must meet the interior and exterior

specifications in the contract. There are significant costs involved in outfitting an aircraft in Supplier’s

fleet to meet Customer’s specifications.

ASC 842-10-55-96

The contract contains a lease. Customer has the right to use the aircraft for two years.

ASC 842-10-55-97

There is an identified asset. The aircraft is explicitly specified in the contract, and although Supplier can

substitute the aircraft, its substitution right is not substantive. Supplier’s substitution right is not

substantive because of the significant costs involved in outfitting another aircraft to meet the

specifications required by the contract such that Supplier is not expected to benefit economically from

substituting the aircraft.

ASC 842-10-55-98

Customer has the right to control the use of the aircraft throughout the two-year period of use because:

a. Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the aircraft

over the two-year period of use. Customer has exclusive use of the aircraft throughout the period of

use.

b. Customer has the right to direct the use of the aircraft. The restrictions on where the aircraft can fly

define the scope of Customer’s right to use the aircraft. Within the scope of its right of use,

Customer makes the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the aircraft is used

throughout the two-year period of use because it decides whether, where, and when the aircraft

travels as well as the passengers and cargo it will transport. Customer has the right to change

these decisions throughout the two-year period of use.

ASC 842-10-55-99

Although the operation of the aircraft is essential to its efficient use, Supplier’s decisions in this regard

do not give it the right to direct how and for what purpose the aircraft is used. Consequently, Supplier

does not control the use of the aircraft during the period of use, and Supplier’s decisions do not affect

Customer’s control of the use of the aircraft.

Right to substitute asset throughout the ‘period of use’

For a substitution right to be substantive, it must provide the supplier with the right to substitute the asset

throughout the “period of use,” as defined in ASC 842. Therefore, it is important to properly identify the

period of use, as discussed in Section 2.2.1, before considering whether a substitution right is

substantive.

Lease identification 63

Grant Thornton insights: Substitution rights for only a portion of the period of use

A five-year contract to use space in a shopping mall to operate a retail kiosk contains a substitution

right that can be exercised beginning after year two of the contract. The substitution right gives the mall

owner the option to substitute another location within the shopping mall for the space initially identified

in the contract.

We believe that the period of use must be established before assessing whether a contract contains a

substantive substitution right. In this example, we believe the period of use is five years, since that is

the period of time during which the asset will be used to fulfill the contract between the supplier and its

customer.

We do not believe that the contract term can be separated into multiple periods of use so that a lease

exists only for the period of use that lacks a substantive substitution right (in this example, years one

and two).

The guidance in ASC 842-10-15-10 states that a substitution right is substantive if the supplier can

exercise its substitution right throughout the period of use. Since the substitution right in this example

can only be exercised during three-fifths of the period of use, we believe that it is not substantive.

Conditional substitution rights

Sometimes a supplier’s ability to substitute an alternative asset depends on the existence of certain

conditions during the period of use. For example, a customer might periodically return a leased asset to

the supplier’s premises for storage when the asset is temporarily idled, and pick up the asset from the

supplier’s premises when it is again needed in the customer’s operations. While the asset is stored at the

supplier’s premises, the supplier has the contractual right and the practical ability to substitute the asset.

We believe it is important to evaluate the nature of the conditions under which the supplier has the right

and the ability to substitute an asset. If the conditions are within the customer’s control, then we believe

that the conditional substitution right does not allow the supplier to control the use of the asset. In other

words, if the customer may choose to continually possess the asset throughout the term of the contract,

then the supplier’s ability to substitute the asset is conditional upon the customer’s decision to temporarily

relinquish physical possession of the asset, and the supplier’s conditional substitution right does not

preclude the customer from controlling the use of the asset.

According to paragraph BC129 of ASU 2016-02, “Topic 842 clarifies that if a supplier has a substantive

right to substitute the asset throughout the period of use, there is not an identified asset and the contract

does not contain a lease. That is because the supplier (and not the customer) controls the use of the

asset if it can substitute that asset throughout the period of use, thereby deciding for what purpose the

asset is used.” Therefore, we believe it is important for entities to consider whether a substitution right

allows the supplier, rather than the customer, to control the use of the asset when determining whether a

substitution right is substantive.

Lease identification 64

Conditional substitution rights

Customer enters into a contract with Supplier to use 100 vehicles for two years. Customer’s employees

will use the vehicles in carrying out Customer’s operating activities, including visiting current and

prospective clients. From time to time Customer might not be able to use all of the vehicles under the

contract. For example, if an employee that was assigned a vehicle resigns, that vehicle might be idled

for a short period of time until it is redeployed for the departed employee’s replacement. While a vehicle

is idled, Customer has the option to store the vehicle at Supplier’s premises. While the vehicle is at

Supplier’s premises, Supplier has the contractual right and the practical ability to provide that vehicle to

another customer, provided that when Customer again requires use of the idled vehicle, Supplier

provides a similar vehicle (same make and model) for Customer’s use.

At the inception of the contract, Customer expects that it will periodically return vehicles to Supplier’s

premises for short periods of time for various reasons during the two-year contract term. However,

Customer has the contractual right to retain possession of all 100 vehicles from the commencement

date through the end of the contract term.

Customer determines that when an idled vehicle is stored at Supplier’s premises during the contract

term, Supplier has the practical ability to allow another customer to use that vehicle and Supplier would

benefit economically from doing so. However, Supplier’s ability to substitute an asset in this manner is

conditional on Customer’s decision to return the idled asset to the Supplier’s premises. Since Supplier’s

practical ability to substitute an asset is effectively subject to Customer’s approval (which is implicit in

Customer’s decision to store an idled asset on Supplier’s premises), Supplier’s substitution right does

not allow Supplier to control the use of each asset under the contract during the contractual term.

Accordingly, Supplier’s substitution right is not substantive.

2.3.2 Portions of assets

Some contracts provide the customer with the right to use a capacity portion of an asset. For example, a

customer has the right to use 30 percent of a fiber optic cable’s capacity or 50 percent of the available

square footage in a warehouse. For a capacity portion of an asset to represent an identified asset, it must

be physically distinct. A stated percentage of an asset’s capacity is not physically distinct.

ASC 842-10-15-16 provides examples of physically distinct portions of assets, such as one floor of a

multilevel office building and a pipeline lateral that connects a single customer to a main pipeline.

Similarly, an identified strand within a fiber optic cable represents a physically distinct portion of the fiber

optic cable.

If a contract provides a customer with the right to use “substantially all” of the asset’s capacity, then the

identified asset is the entire asset, although technically the contract provides the right to use only a

portion of the asset’s capacity. While the term “substantially all” is not defined in ASC 842, the

implementation guidance in ASC 842-10-55-2 states that when assessing lease classification, a

reasonable approach is to conclude that 90 percent or more of an asset’s fair value represents

“substantially all” of the asset’s fair value. Accordingly, we believe that it would be reasonable for an entity

to evaluate whether a capacity portion of an asset represents substantially all of that asset’s capacity

using a 90 percent threshold.

Lease identification 65

ASC 842-10-15-16

A capacity portion of an asset is an identified asset if it is physically distinct (for example, a floor of a

building or a segment of a pipeline that connects a single customer to the larger pipeline). A capacity or

other portion of an asset that is not physically distinct (for example, a capacity portion of a fiber optic

cable) is not an identified asset, unless it represents substantially all of the capacity of the asset and

thereby provides the customer with the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from

use of the asset.

2.3.3 Physically distinct

The guidance in ASC 842 does not address how to determine whether a capacity portion of an asset is

physically distinct. If the capacity portion of an asset is physically distinct, then the capacity portion is the

identified asset for purposes of determining whether the contract is or contains a lease. If the capacity

portion is not physically distinct, then the entire asset, not just the capacity portion, is the identified asset

for purposes of determining whether the contract is or contains a lease. This assessment is essential to

determining whether the arrangement conveys to the customer both (a) the right to receive substantially

all of the benefits from using the identified asset, and (b) the right to direct the use of the identified asset.

Determining whether a capacity portion of an asset is physically distinct requires judgment. In our view,

an entity should consider both the asset’s design and the level of integration between the larger asset and

the capacity portion when making this assessment.

For example, assume that a cell tower is designed to accommodate multiple customers’ electronic

communication equipment, and each attachment point on the tower can be distinguished from other parts

of the tower. In this case, an entity might determine that the attachment points are physically distinct

portions of the asset and that the identified asset is the portion of the tower where each customer’s

equipment is attached. On the other hand, consider a utility pole that is designed to suspend electrical

transmission wires, and as a secondary use allows customers to attach equipment, including data

transmission wires, to various indistinguishable points on the pole beneath a certain height. In this case,

an entity might conclude that the attachment point for such equipment is not a physically distinct portion

of the asset and that the identified asset is the entire utility pole.

As another example, an entity that obtains the right to display an advertisement directly on an exterior

wall of a building must consider whether the portion of the exterior wall used to display the advertisement

is a physically distinct portion of the building. In this example, the building was designed to provide

residential or commercial space for tenants’ use rather than a surface for displaying advertisements, and

the portion of the exterior wall used to display the advertisement does not have any unique characteristics

relative to other parts of the building’s exterior wall. Accordingly, an entity might conclude that the portion

of the exterior wall is not a physically distinct portion of the building, and that the identified asset is

therefore the entire building.

Figure 2.7 below illustrates our view that an entity’s determination of whether a capacity portion of an

asset is physically distinct can be informed by the level of integration of the capacity portion with the rest

of the asset and the asset’s design.

Lease identification 66

Figure 2.7: Physically distinct

When a contract conveys the right to use an entire asset, questions might arise about whether

components of the asset should be evaluated as separate identified assets or whether the asset should

be evaluated in the aggregate, including all of its components. In general, we do not believe that an entity

should assess the components of a single integrated asset as separate lease components. This view is

consistent with the following examples from ASC 842:

 Example 6, beginning at ASC 842-10-55-79, addresses a contract in which an entity agrees to

transport a customer’s goods on a specified ship, and the identified asset is the ship rather than

space on the ship.

 Example 7, beginning at ASC 842-10-55-92, addresses a contract in which an entity agrees to

provide an aircraft for a customer’s use, and the identified asset is the aircraft rather than space on

the aircraft.

 Example 9, beginning at ASC 842-10-55-108, addresses a contract in which an entity agrees to

provide power generated by a solar farm to a customer. Although the solar farm consists of multiple

pieces of equipment, including solar panels and electrical transmission equipment, the identified

asset is the entire solar farm rather than its component parts.

 Example 10, beginning at ASC 842-10-55-124, addresses a contract in which an entity agrees to

provide network services using identified servers. Although the servers consist of multiple

Lease identification 67

components, such as processors and storage, the identified asset is each server rather than its

components.

The table in Figure 2.8 features several examples of how we believe an entity might determine the

“identified asset” in arrangements where the unit of account is unclear.

Figure 2.8: Identified asset examples

Description

Identified asset

Commentary

Customer’s right to attach

equipment to utility pole

Utility pole

The utility pole is not designed to accommodate

nonelectrical transmission wires and other equipment,

which is a secondary use of the asset. The portion of

the utility pole used is highly integrated with the rest of

the asset.

Customer’s right to attach

equipment to cell tower

Space on the

cell tower

The cell tower is designed to accommodate multiple

customers’ equipment, and the portion of the tower

used by each customer is easily distinguishable from

other parts of the cell tower.

Customer’s right to display

an advertisement on the

side of a building

Building

Neither the wall nor the building were designed to

display advertising, which is a secondary use of the

asset. The portion of the wall used to display the

advertisement is highly integrated with the rest of the

building’s exterior.

Customer’s right to display

an advertisement on a

billboard

Billboard

The billboard is designed to display an advertisement.

If the billboard contains multiple panels that can be

used by different customers, then each panel can be

easily distinguished from the other parts of the

billboard.

Customer’s right to

connect to “last mile” of

pipeline or to the main

pipeline via a pipeline

lateral

Depends

The distinction between the “last mile” of a pipeline or

any other distribution network (such as for electricity

or data) and a “lateral” is subtle. Both connect a

customer to the main pipeline, but the last mile

represents a segment of the main pipeline between its

terminus at a customer’s facility and the point where

another customer can connect to the main pipeline,

whereas a lateral represents a segment that branches

off from the main pipeline. We believe whether the last

mile or a lateral is physically distinct depends on

whether it can be mechanically separated from the

rest of the network. If the last mile or lateral can be

Lease identification 68

mechanically separated, then we believe it is

physically distinct.

2.4 Right to control the use of the identified asset

A contract that contains a lease must convey to the customer the right to control the use of an identified

asset. To control the use of an identified asset, the customer must have both the right to receive

substantially all of the economic benefits from using the asset and the right to direct the use of the asset

throughout the period of use.

2.4.1 Right to receive economic benefits

To meet the definition of a lease, a contract must provide the customer with the right to obtain

substantially all of the economic benefits from using the asset throughout the period of use. The “period of

use” is the period of time during which an asset is used to fulfill a contract with a customer, including

nonconsecutive periods, as explained in Section 2.2.1. The economic benefits from using an asset

include the asset’s primary output and by-products. For example, the economic benefits from using a

solar farm include the power generated by the solar panels and renewable energy credits obtained from

using the assets to generate power.

ASC 842-10-15-17

To control the use of an identified asset, a customer is required to have the right to obtain substantially

all of the economic benefits from use of the asset throughout the period of use (for example, by having

exclusive use of the asset throughout that period). A customer can obtain economic benefits from use

of an asset directly or indirectly in many ways, such as by using, holding, or subleasing the asset. The

economic benefits from use of an asset include its primary output and by-products (including potential

cash flows derived from these items) and other economic benefits from using the asset that could be

realized from a commercial transaction with a third party.

An entity must evaluate the right to receive economic benefits from using an asset based on the defined

scope of the customer’s rights under the contract. For example, a customer that obtains the right to use a

vehicle only within a certain territory specified in the contract could nevertheless have the right to obtain

substantially all of the economic benefits from using that vehicle throughout the period of use. Although

such restrictions might limit the economic benefits that are available from using an asset during the period

of use, they do not prevent the customer from having the right to obtain all of the benefits that are

available subject to the usage restrictions during the period of use.

ASC 842-10-15-18

When assessing the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of an asset, an

entity shall consider the economic benefits that result from use of the asset within the defined scope of

a customer’s right to use the asset in the contract (see paragraph 842-10-15-23). For example:

Lease identification 69

a. If a contract limits the use of a motor vehicle to only one particular territory during the period of use,

an entity shall consider only the economic benefits from use of the motor vehicle within that

territory and not beyond.

b. If a contract specifies that a customer can drive a motor vehicle only up to a particular number of

miles during the period of use, an entity shall consider only the economic benefits from use of the

motor vehicle for the permitted mileage and not beyond.

Determining whether a customer has the right to obtain “substantially all” of the economic benefits from

using the asset throughout the period of use can be challenging when an asset has multiple outputs that

are sold to different customers, as illustrated in the following example.

Customer obtains less than 100 percent of economic benefits

A wind farm has two types of output: power and renewable energy credits. Customer A enters into

a 10-year contract to purchase all of the power generated by the wind farm. Due to a pre-existing

arrangement between the owner of the wind farm and Customer B, during the first three years of the

contract, Customer B has the right to obtain all of the renewable energy credits granted from using the

wind farm assets to generate power. For the remainder of the contract, Customer A has the right to

obtain all of the renewable energy credits granted.

The identified asset in the contract is the wind farm, and the period of use is equal to the 10-year term of

the contract because that is the period during which the identified asset is used to fulfill the contract with

Customer A.

To determine whether it has the right to receive substantially all of the economic benefits from using the

identified asset during the period of use, Customer A compares the fair value of the outputs it obtains

over the period of use to the total fair value of the outputs generated during that period.

If, on average, the power generated by the wind farm represents 80 percent of the fair value of its output

and the renewable energy credits represent the remaining 20 percent, then Customer A would have

the right to obtain only 80 percent of the economic benefits from using the asset during the first three

years of the contract. However, Customer A would have the right to obtain, on a fair value basis,

approximately 94 percent (80 percent in the first three years and 100 percent for the remaining seven

years) of the economic benefits from using the asset over the entire period of use.

ASC 842-10-55-2 states that when assessing lease classification, a reasonable approach is to conclude

that 90 percent or more of an asset’s fair value represents “substantially all” of the asset’s fair value. In

this case, since Customer A has the right to obtain more than 90 percent of the economic benefits from

using the asset over the period of use, we believe it would be reasonable for Customer A to conclude

that it has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from using the asset throughout

the period of use.

If a contract requires a customer to remit to the supplier a portion of the cash flows generated by

operating an asset (such as a fixed percentage of revenue generated from using retail space), those cash

flows would be considered part of the economic benefits obtained by the customer from operating the

asset, which the customer then pays to the supplier. Therefore, such a requirement would not preclude

the customer from having the right to obtain substantially all of the benefits from operating the asset.

Lease identification 70

ASC 842-10-15-19

If a contract requires a customer to pay the supplier or another party a portion of the cash flows derived

from use of an asset as consideration, those cash flows paid as consideration shall be considered to

be part of the economic benefits that the customer obtains from use of the asset. For example, if a

customer is required to pay the supplier a percentage of sales from use of retail space as consideration

for that use, that requirement does not prevent the customer from having the right to obtain

substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the retail space. That is because the cash flows

arising from those sales are considered to be economic benefits that the customer obtains from use of

the retail space, a portion of which it then pays to the supplier as consideration for the right to use that

space.

Grant Thornton insights: ‘Economic benefits’ in a service contract with an

embedded lease

A service contract that contains the right to use an asset for no stated consideration (a “free lease”)

must be evaluated to determine whether it contains an embedded lease. Often these arrangements

include equipment that is incidental to the service provided.

For example, Entity A is a telecommunications provider that installs equipment on Entity B’s property

that Entity A uses to provide telecommunication services to Entity B. Entities A and B must determine

whether the contract contains a lease of the equipment from Entity A to Entity B. If the contract

contains a lease of the equipment, then both entities must account for the right to use the equipment

as a lease. If the contract does not contain a lease of the equipment, then the entities must consider

whether Entity A is leasing space from Entity B on which to operate its equipment.

Alternatively, assume that Entity A also uses the equipment to provide services to other customers.

If Entity B does not obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from using the equipment, then

both Entity A and Entity B would conclude that the contract does not contain a lease of the equipment.

However, Entity A may be leasing space on which the equipment is located, which would make

Entity B a lessor.

Assuming that Entity A’s right to use space on Entity B’s property meets the definition of a lease,

Entity A should reflect the fair value of the “free lease” it is receiving as noncash consideration from

Entity B, its customer, as part of the transaction price under ASC 606. In this scenario, the embedded

lease causes an increase in Entity A’s total revenue compared to the stated consideration in the

contract, because service revenue and lease cost must be presented on a gross basis. This “grossing

up” of revenue and expense is required even when the stated consideration in the contract is equal to

the observable stand-alone selling price of the nonlease service component.

Easements

In general, the term “easement” refers to a right to access, traverse, or otherwise use certain property for

a specific purpose. For example, a private landowner might grant an easement to a midstream oil and

gas company to run a pipeline across a plot of land otherwise used for farming, or the U.S. government

might grant an easement to a railroad operator to run railroad tracks across federally owned land.

Lease identification 71

The first step in analyzing a contract that conveys a long-term right to use land, such as a land easement,

is to consider whether the contract conveys the right to use an identified asset for a period of time.

Perpetual rights to use land do not meet the definition of a lease because they do not identify a period of

use. However, an exceptionally long-term right to use land, such as a 999 year easement, does specify a

period of time, and could meet the accounting definition of a lease.

An entity must consider whether a contract that conveys to the customer the long-term right to use land

also conveys substantially all of the economic benefits from using the land for the term of the contract.

The outcome of this analysis depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the arrangement.

For example, the potential economic benefits associated with using identified land in an otherwise unused

area might be limited to, or substantially consist of, benefits that are derived from running a pipeline over

that land. In such circumstances, a pipeline company that enters into an easement might conclude that it

has the right to substantially all of the economic benefits from using the land subject to that easement. On

the other hand, the potential economic benefits associated with using farmland might consist of benefits

from simultaneously running a pipeline over the land and from farming the land or having livestock graze

on the land. In such circumstances, a pipeline company that enters into an easement might conclude that

it does not have the right to substantially all of the economic benefits from using the land subject to that

easement, depending on the relative value of the various outputs associated with using that land.

At the crossroads: Land easements in transition

In January 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-01, Leases (Topic 842): Land Easement Practical

Expedient for Transition to Topic 842, which amends the guidance in ASC 842 to provide optional

transition guidance for land easements not previously accounted for as leases under GAAP. Legacy

GAAP does not contain clear guidance about how land easements should be accounted for, which has

led to diversity in practice. The practical expedient offered under the optional transition guidance in

ASU 2018-01 applies to easements existing or expired as of the date when the entity applies ASC 842,

and allows entities that did not account for land easements as leases under legacy GAAP to continue

to account for those easements under the guidance they had previously applied, such as ASC 350,

Intangibles – Goodwill and Other.

2.4.2 Right to direct the use

In addition to providing the customer with the right to receive substantially all of the economic benefits

from using the identified asset, a lease must provide the customer with the right to direct the use of the

identified asset throughout the period of use.

A customer has the right to direct the use of the asset if either of the following conditions is met:

 The customer has the right to direct how and for what purpose the asset is used.

 If the decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used are predetermined, either

 The customer has the right to operate the asset or to direct others to operate the asset in a

manner it determines.

 The customer designed the asset in a way that predetermines how and for what purpose it is

used throughout the period of use.

Lease identification 72

To determine whether the customer has the right to direct the use of an asset, an entity must consider the

right to make decisions about the use of the asset only during the period of use. For example, if a

customer’s only decision-making right during the term of the contract is the right to specify the output of

certain equipment before the period of use begins, and if the decisions about how and for what purpose

the asset is used are not predetermined, then the customer would not have the right to direct the use of

the equipment. In this scenario, the ability to specify the output before the period of use begins provides

the customer with the same rights as any other customer that purchases goods or services. However, if

the decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used are predetermined, then the customer

must consider whether it has the right to operate the equipment or whether it designed the asset in a way

that predetermines how and for what purpose it is used throughout the period of use.

ASC 842-10-15-20

A customer has the right to direct the use of an identified asset throughout the period of use in either of

the following situations:

a. The customer has the right to direct how and for what purpose the asset is used throughout the

period of use (as described in paragraphs 842-10-15-24 through 15-26).

b. The relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used are predetermined (see

paragraph 842-10-15-21) and at least one of the following conditions exists:

1. The customer has the right to operate the asset (or to direct others to operate the asset in a

manner that it determines) throughout the period of use without the supplier having the right to

change those operating instructions.

2. The customer designed the asset (or specific aspects of the asset) in a way that predetermines

how and for what purpose the asset will be used throughout the period of use.

ASC 842-10-15-21

The relevant decisions about how and for what purpose an asset is used can be predetermined in a

number of ways. For example, the relevant decisions can be predetermined by the design of the asset

or by contractual restrictions on the use of the asset.

ASC 842-10-15-22

In assessing whether a customer has the right to direct the use of an asset, an entity shall consider

only rights to make decisions about the use of the asset during the period of use unless the customer

designed the asset (or specific aspects of the asset) in accordance with paragraph 842-10-15-20(b)(2).

Consequently, unless that condition exists, an entity shall not consider decisions that are

predetermined before the period of use. For example, if a customer is able only to specify the output of

an asset before the period of use, the customer does not have the right to direct the use of that asset.

The ability to specify the output in a contract before the period of use, without any other decision-

making rights relating to the use of the asset, gives a customer the same rights as any customer that

purchases goods or services.

Lease identification 73

Protective rights

Contractual protective rights, such as limiting the volume of output or limiting where the customer can

use the asset, typically define the scope of the customer’s right to use the asset, but do not, in and of

themselves, prevent the customer from having the right to direct the use of the asset. For example, a limit

on the number of miles that can be driven during the period of use in a car rental contract would not likely

prevent the customer from having the right to direct the use of the automobile. Likewise, in a contract that

conveys the right to use retail space in a shopping mall, limiting the hours of operation to times when the

mall is open to the public would not likely prevent the customer from having the right to direct the use of

the retail space.

ASC 842-10-15-23

A contract may include terms and conditions designed to protect the supplier’s interest in the asset or

other assets, to protect its personnel, or to ensure the supplier’s compliance with laws or regulations.

These are examples of protective rights. For example, a contract may specify the maximum amount of

use of an asset or limit where or when the customer can use the asset, may require a customer to

follow particular operating practices, or may require a customer to inform the supplier of changes in

how an asset will be used. Protective rights typically define the scope of the customer’s right of use but

do not, in isolation, prevent the customer from having the right to direct the use of an asset.

How and for what purpose an asset is used

To have the right to direct how and for what purpose an asset is used throughout the period of use, a

customer must have the contractual right to change how and for what purpose the asset is used

throughout that period. These decision-making rights are most relevant when they affect the economic

benefits derived from using the underlying asset during the period of use. Examples of relevant decision-

making rights are illustrated in Figure 2.9 below.

Figure 2.9: How and for what purpose an asset is used

Lease identification 74

ASC 842-10-15-24

A customer has the right to direct how and for what purpose an asset is used throughout the period of

use if, within the scope of its right of use defined in the contract, it can change how and for what

purpose the asset is used throughout that period. In making this assessment, an entity considers the

decision-making rights that are most relevant to changing how and for what purpose an asset is used

throughout the period of use. Decision-making rights are relevant when they affect the economic

benefits to be derived from use. The decision-making rights that are most relevant are likely to be

different for different contracts, depending on the nature of the asset and the terms and conditions of

the contract.

ASC 842-10-15-25

Examples of decision-making rights that, depending on the circumstances, grant the right to direct how

and for what purpose an asset is used, within the defined scope of the customer’s right of use, include

the following:

a. The right to change the type of output that is produced by the asset (for example, deciding whether

to use a shipping container to transport goods or for storage, or deciding on the mix of products

sold from a retail unit)

b. The right to change when the output is produced (for example, deciding when an item of machinery

or a power plant will be used)

c. The right to change where the output is produced (for example, deciding on the destination of a

truck or a ship or deciding where a piece of equipment is used or deployed)

d. The right to change whether the output is produced and the quantity of that output (for example,

deciding whether to produce energy from a power plant and how much energy to produce from that

power plant).

In general, operational decisions, such as adjusting the speed and route of a cargo ship during a planned

voyage, are subordinate to decisions about how and for what purpose an asset is used, such as when

and to what destination a cargo ship will sail, in evaluating which party has the right to direct how and for

what purpose an asset is used. These considerations are similar to how management’s decisions about

carrying out a business’s operations are subordinate to decisions about operating and financing a

business made by the board of directors in assessing how an entity is controlled.

ASC 842-10-15-26

Examples of decision-making rights that do not grant the right to direct how and for what purpose an

asset is used include rights that are limited to operating or maintaining the asset. Although rights such

as those to operate or maintain an asset often are essential to the efficient use of an asset, they are

not rights to direct how and for what purpose the asset is used and often are dependent on the

decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used. Such rights (that is, to operate or maintain

the asset) can be held by the customer or the supplier. The supplier often holds those rights to protect

its investment in the asset. However, rights to operate an asset may grant the customer the right to

Lease identification 75

direct the use of the asset if the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used

are predetermined (see paragraph 842-10-15-20(b)(1)).

In some cases, decisions about how and for what purpose an asset is used are predetermined under the

contract. However, as discussed in paragraph BC138 of ASU 2016-02, the Board expects that there will

be “relatively few cases” where all of the decisions about how and for what purpose an asset is used are

predetermined. Therefore, it is important for entities to focus on the decisions about how and for what

purpose an asset is used that can be made during the period of use. In cases where some decisions are

predetermined, the conclusion about whether the customer has the right to direct the use of the asset

depends on which party has the right to make decisions that are not predetermined about how and for

what purpose the asset is used.

For example, a customer enters into a contract for the right to use manufacturing equipment for a fixed

period of time. According to the contract, the equipment, located at the supplier’s facility, can produce

only one type of output at a fixed quantity per hour. If the contract does not specify when the equipment

must operate, then whichever party has the right to decide when or whether the equipment operates

would likely have the right to direct how and for what purpose the equipment is used.

The following example from ASC 842-10-55 illustrates a situation where the customer’s right to direct the

use of an asset, or lack thereof, is the defining factor in determining whether or not a contract contains a

lease.

Example 6 – Ship

Case A—Contract Does Not Contain a Lease ASC 842-10-55-79

Customer enters into a contract with a ship owner (Supplier) for the transport of cargo from Rotterdam

to Sydney on a specified ship. The ship is explicitly specified in the contract, and Supplier does not

have substitution rights. The cargo will occupy substantially all of the capacity of the ship. The contract

specifies the cargo to be transported on the ship and the dates of pickup and delivery.

ASC 842-10-55-80

Supplier operates and maintains the ship and is responsible for the safe passage of the cargo onboard

the ship. Customer is prohibited from hiring another operator for the ship or operating the ship itself

during the term of the contract.

ASC 842-10-55-81

The contract does not contain a lease.

ASC 842-10-55-82

There is an identified asset. The ship is explicitly specified in the contract, and Supplier does not have

the right to substitute that specified ship.

ASC 842-10-55-83

Lease identification 76

Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the ship over the

period of use. Its cargo will occupy substantially all of the capacity of the ship, thereby preventing other

parties from obtaining economic benefits from use of the ship.

ASC 842-10-55-84

However, Customer does not have the right to control the use of the ship because it does not have the

right to direct its use. Customer does not have the right to direct how and for what purpose the ship is

used. How and for what purpose the ship will be used (that is, the transport of specified cargo from

Rotterdam to Sydney within a specified time frame) are predetermined in the contract. Customer has

no right to change how and for what purpose the ship is used during the period of use. Customer has

no other decision-making rights about the use of the ship during the period of use (for example, it does

not have the right to operate the ship) and did not design the ship. Customer has the same rights

regarding the use of the ship as if it were one of multiple customers transporting cargo on the ship.

Case B—Contract Contains a Lease

ASC 842-10-55-85

Customer enters into a contract with Supplier for the use of a specified ship for a five-year period. The

ship is explicitly specified in the contract, and Supplier does not have substitution rights.

ASC 842-10-55-86

Customer decides what cargo will be transported and whether, when, and to which ports the ship will

sail, throughout the five-year period of use, subject to restrictions specified in the contract. Those

restrictions prevent Customer from sailing the ship into waters at a high risk of piracy or carrying

hazardous materials as cargo.

ASC 842-10-55-87

Supplier operates and maintains the ship and is responsible for the safe passage of the cargo onboard

the ship. Customer is prohibited from hiring another operator for the ship or operating the ship itself

during the term of the contract.

ASC 842-10-55-88

The contract contains a lease. Customer has the right to use the ship for five years.

ASC 842-10-55-89

There is an identified asset. The ship is explicitly specified in the contract, and Supplier does not have

the right to substitute that specified ship.

ASC 842-10-55-90

Customer has the right to control the use of the ship throughout the five-year period of use because:

a. Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the ship over

the five-year period of use. Customer has exclusive use of the ship throughout the period of use.

Lease identification 77

b. Customer has the right to direct the use of the ship. The contractual restrictions about where the

ship can sail and the cargo to be transported by the ship define the scope of Customer’s right to

use the ship. They are protective rights that protect Supplier’s investment in the ship and Supplier’s

personnel. Within the scope of its right of use, Customer makes the relevant decisions about how

and for what purpose the ship is used throughout the five-year period of use because it decides

whether, where, and when the ship sails, as well as the cargo it will transport. Customer has the

right to change these decisions throughout the five-year period of use.

ASC 842-10-55-91

Although the operation and maintenance of the ship are essential to its efficient use, Supplier’s

decisions in this regard do not give it the right to direct how and for what purpose the ship is used.

Instead, Supplier’s decisions are dependent on Customer’s decisions about how and for what purpose

the ship is used.

Right to direct the use of portions of assets

If a portion of an asset is determined to be physically distinct under the guidance in ASC 842, then that

portion of the asset is the “identified asset” for purposes of assessing whether a contract is or contains a

lease. In this situation, it can be challenging to determine whether the customer has the right to direct how

and for what purpose the asset is used throughout the period of use since the identified asset is a

component of the larger asset.

For example, a midstream oil and gas company (pipeline owner) constructs a pipeline lateral to connect

its main pipeline system to a particular customer’s facility. While it might appear that the customer has

exclusive use of the lateral, it is important to consider whether the customer has the right to direct how

and for what purpose the lateral is used throughout the period of use. In many cases, the pipeline owner

has the right to manage the capacity and pressure in the lateral as part of operating the pipeline system,

meaning that the customer does not have the ability to make all of the decisions on how and for what

purpose the asset is being used during the period of use.

It is also important to consider whether the lateral can be mechanically separated from the main pipeline

and, if so, which entity controls the separation. For example, if there is a valve where the lateral connects

to the main pipeline and the customer controls whether that valve is open or closed, then the customer

can likely decide to separately operate the lateral and make all of the decisions about how and for what

purpose the lateral is used. However, if the pipeline owner controls the valve, then the customer would be

less likely to have the right to direct how and for what purpose the lateral is used. An entity’s conclusion in

a given scenario depends on the particular facts and circumstances.

2.4.3 Right to direct the use of assets that the customer can neither access nor possess

It can be a challenge to determine whether the supplier or the customer has the right to make the “how

and for what purpose” decisions in arrangements where a customer has the exclusive right to use an

asset but does not possess it or is unable to directly access it. This might be the case when a customer

enters into a contract to obtain all the power generated by a specified power plant or hires a vendor to

provide network management services using specific remote servers.

If a customer neither possesses nor has the exclusive right to access an identified asset but has the

exclusive right to use the asset, the customer is more likely to control how an identified asset is used

when it has “dispatch rights,” which allow it to specify the timing and/or the quantity of output produced by

the asset.

Lease identification 78

The following examples in ASC 842 illustrate how a customer’s dispatch rights can impact whether a

contract meets the definition of a lease.

Example 9—Contract for Energy/Power

Case A—Contract Contains a Lease

ASC 842-10-55-108

A utility company (Customer) enters into a contract with a power company (Supplier) to purchase all of

the electricity produced by a new solar farm for 20 years. The solar farm is explicitly specified in the

contract, and Supplier has no substitution rights. The solar farm is owned by Supplier, and the energy

cannot be provided to Customer from another asset. Customer designed the solar farm before it was

constructed—Customer hired experts in solar energy to assist in determining the location of the farm

and the engineering of the equipment to be used. Supplier is responsible for building the solar farm to

Customer’s specifications and then operating and maintaining it. There are no decisions to be made

about whether, when, or how much electricity will be produced because the design of the asset has

predetermined these decisions. Supplier will receive tax credits relating to the construction and

ownership of the solar farm, while Customer receives renewable energy credits that accrue from use

of the solar farm.

ASC 842-10-55-109

The contract contains a lease. Customer has the right to use the solar farm for 20 years.

ASC 842-10-55-110

There is an identified asset because the solar farm is explicitly specified in the contract, and Supplier

does not have the right to substitute the specified solar farm.

ASC 842-10-55-111

Customer has the right to control the use of the solar farm throughout the 20-year period of use

because:

a. Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the solar

farm over the 20-year period of use. Customer has exclusive use of the solar farm; it takes all of

the electricity produced by the farm over the 20-year period of use as well as the renewable energy

credits that are a by-product from use of the solar farm. Although Supplier will be receiving

economic benefits from the solar farm in the form of tax credits, those economic benefits relate to

the ownership of the solar farm rather than the use of the solar farm and, thus, are not considered

in this assessment.

b. Customer has the right to direct the use of the solar farm. Neither Customer nor Supplier decides

how and for what purpose the solar farm is used during the period of use because those decisions

are predetermined by the design of the asset (that is, the design of the solar farm has, in effect,

programmed into the asset any relevant decision-making rights about how and for what purpose

the solar farm is used throughout the period of use). Customer does not operate the solar farm;

Supplier makes the decisions about the operation of the solar farm. However, Customer’s design of

the solar farm has given it the right to direct the use of the farm (as described in paragraph 842-10-

Lease identification 79

15-20(b) (2)). Because the design of the solar farm has predetermined how and for what purpose

the asset will be used throughout the period of use, Customer’s control over that design is

substantively no different from Customer controlling those decisions.

Case B—Contract Does Not Contain a Lease

ASC 842-10-55-112

Customer enters into a contract with Supplier to purchase all of the power produced by an explicitly

specified power plant for three years. The power plant is owned and operated by Supplier. Supplier is

unable to provide power to Customer from another plant. The contract sets out the quantity and timing

of power that the power plant will produce throughout the period of use, which cannot be changed in

the absence of extraordinary circumstances (for example, emergency situations). Supplier operates

and maintains the plant on a daily basis in accordance with industry-approved operating practices.

Supplier designed the power plant when it was constructed some years before entering into the

contract with Customer; Customer had no involvement in that design.

ASC 842-10-55-113

The contract does not contain a lease.

ASC 842-10-55-114

There is an identified asset because the power plant is explicitly specified in the contract, and Supplier

does not have the right to substitute the specified plant.

ASC 842-10-55-115

Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the identified

power plant over the three-year period of use. Customer will take all of the power produced by the

power plant over the three-year term of the contract.

ASC 842-10-55-116

However, Customer does not have the right to control the use of the power plant because it does not

have the right to direct its use. Customer does not have the right to direct how and for what purpose

the plant is used. How and for what purpose the plant is used (that is, whether, when, and how much

power the plant will produce) are predetermined in the contract. Customer has no right to change how

and for what purpose the plant is used during the period of use, nor does it have any other decision-

making rights about the use of the power plant during the period of use (for example, it does not

operate the power plant) and did not design the plant. Supplier is the only party that can make

decisions about the plant during the period of use by making the decisions about how the plant is

operated and maintained. Customer has the same rights regarding the use of the plant as if it were

one of many customers obtaining power from the plant.

Case C—Contract Contains a Lease

ASC 842-10-55-117

Lease identification 80

Customer enters into a contract with Supplier to purchase all of the power produced by an explicitly

specified power plant for 10 years. The contract states that Customer has rights to all of the power

produced by the plant (that is, Supplier cannot use the plant to fulfill other contracts).

ASC 842-10-55-118

Customer issues instructions to Supplier about the quantity and timing of the delivery of power. If the

plant is not producing power for Customer, it does not operate.

ASC 842-10-55-119

Supplier operates and maintains the plant on a daily basis in accordance with industry-approved

operating practices.

ASC 842-10-55-120

The contract contains a lease. Customer has the right to use the power plant for 10 years.

ASC 842-10-55-121

There is an identified asset. The power plant is explicitly specified in the contract, and Supplier does

not have the right to substitute the specified plant.

ASC 842-10-55-122

Customer has the right to control the use of the power plant throughout the 10-year period of use

because:

a. Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the power

plant over the 10-year period of use. Customer has exclusive use of the power plant; it has rights to

all of the power produced by the power plant throughout the 10-year period of use.

b. Customer has the right to direct the use of the power plant. Customer makes the relevant decisions

about how and for what purpose the power plant is used because it has the right to determine

whether, when, and how much power the plant will produce (that is, the timing and quantity, if any,

of power produced) throughout the period of use. Because Supplier is prevented from using the

power plant for another purpose, Customer’s decision making about the timing and quantity of

power produced, in effect, determines when and whether the plant produces output.

ASC 842-10-55-123

Although the operation and maintenance of the power plant are essential to its efficient use, Supplier’s

decisions in this regard do not give it the right to direct how and for what purpose the power plant is

used. Consequently, Supplier does not control the use of the power plant during the period of use.

Instead, Supplier’s decisions are dependent on Customer’s decisions about how and for what purpose

the power plant is used.

Ultimately, whether or not a contract contains a lease depends on the type of decision-making rights the

contract provides to the customer.

Lease identification 81

2.4.4 Assets used to obtain or use a good or service

Questions about whether a contract meets the definition of a lease often arise in arrangements where the

use of an asset is incidental to the supplier providing goods or services to the customer. For example, a

medical testing company might provide its customer with testing equipment along with “consumables”

(nonreusable products) that allow the customer to perform medical tests using that equipment.

In these situations, the customer should begin the lease analysis by determining whether it possesses the

identified asset. If the customer possesses the asset, then it is more likely that the customer has the right

to make the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used. In the medical testing

equipment example, if the customer possesses the testing equipment, it could probably decide if and

when to perform the tests, the quantity of tests to perform, and where the tests are performed. However, if

the customer does not possess the testing equipment and sends the test samples to the supplier’s lab to

be analyzed using specified equipment designated for the customer’s exclusive use, then the customer is

less likely to decide when and where to perform the tests.

In some cases, the customer does not have the right to make the relevant decisions about how and for

what purpose the asset is used, even though it possesses the identified asset. Example 10, Case A, in

ASC 842-10-55 illustrates such a scenario. In contrast, Case B shows a scenario in which the customer

does have the right to make the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used.

Example 10—Contract for Network Services

Case A—Contract Does Not Contain a Lease

ASC 842-10-55-124

Customer enters into a contract with a telecommunications company (Supplier) for network services for

two years. The contract requires Supplier to supply network services that meet a specified quality level.

To provide the services, Supplier installs and configures servers at Customer’s premises; Supplier

determines the speed and quality of data transportation in the network using the servers. Supplier can

reconfigure or replace the servers when needed to continuously provide the quality of network services

defined in the contract. Customer does not operate the servers or make any significant decisions about

their use.

ASC 842-10-55-125

The contract does not contain a lease. Instead, the contract is a service contract in which Supplier uses

the equipment to meet the level of network services determined by Customer.

ASC 842-10-55-126

Customer does not control the use of the servers because Customer’s only decision-making rights

relate to deciding on the level of network services (the output of the servers) before the period of use—

the level of network services cannot be changed during the period of use without modifying the

contract. For example, even though Customer produces the data to be transported, that activity does

not directly affect the configuration of the network services and, thus, it does not affect how and for

what purpose the servers are used. Supplier is the only party that can make decisions about the use of

the servers during the period of use. Supplier has the right to decide how data are transported using

the servers, whether to reconfigure the servers, and whether to use the servers for another purpose.

Accordingly, Supplier controls the use of the servers in providing network services to Customer. There

Lease identification 82

is no need to assess whether the servers are identified assets because Customer does not have the

right to control the use of the servers.

Case B—Contract Contains a Lease

ASC 842-10-55-127

Customer enters into a contract with an information technology company (Supplier) for the use of an

identified server for three years. Supplier delivers and installs the server at Customer’s premises in

accordance with Customer’s instructions and provides repair and maintenance services for the server,

as needed, throughout the period of use. Supplier substitutes the server only in the case of

malfunction. Customer decides which data to store on the server and how to integrate the server within

its operations. Customer can change its decisions in this regard throughout the period of use.

ASC 842-10-55-128

The contract contains a lease. Customer has the right to use the server for three years.

ASC 842-10-55-129

There is an identified asset. The server is explicitly specified in the contract. Supplier can substitute the

server only if it is malfunctioning.

ASC 842-10-55-130

Customer has the right to control the use of the server throughout the three-year period of use

because:

a. Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the server

over the three-year period of use. Customer has exclusive use of the server throughout the period

of use.

b. Customer has the right to direct the use of the server. Customer makes the relevant decisions

about how and for what purpose the server is used because it has the right to decide which aspect

of its operations the server is used to support and which data it stores on the server. Customer is

the only party that can make decisions about the use of the server during the period of use.

In Example 10, Case A, above, a customer enters into a contract to obtain network services from a

supplier. To provide those network services, the supplier uses servers located at the customer’s

premises. From the customer’s perspective, it has purchased network services, but since delivery of

those services relies on specified assets, the customer must evaluate whether it is leasing those assets.

Based on our discussions with the FASB staff, there are three critical assessments in this example that

lead to the conclusion that the contract is not a lease:

1. Identifying the assets

2. Identifying the output of the assets

3. Identifying the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the assets are used to provide the

output

Lease identification 83

Each of these criteria is examined below.

Identifying the assets

Case A does not explain whether the servers are explicitly identified in the contract, but, since the servers

are installed at the customer’s premises, they are at least implicitly identified. The customer would be able

to determine which particular servers are used by the supplier to provide the network services. Therefore,

the identified asset in this arrangement is each individual server.

Identifying the output of the assets

In this case, the output of each individual server is not equivalent to the complete network services being

provided to the customer. For a contract to qualify as a lease, the output must be determined for each

identified asset, not in aggregate for a group of identified assets. The supplier has the right to reconfigure

the network so that each server can either (1) perform a different function than it performed at the outset

of the contract, or (2) be taken offline for a period of time and not contribute at all to the network services.

As a result, the output of each server is not predetermined and depends on what role the server is playing

in the network at any point in time.

Identifying relevant decisions about how and for what purpose assets are used to

provide the output

Examples of decisions affecting how and for what purpose an asset is used include determining the type

or quantity of output produced, as well as when, where, or whether output is produced.

With respect to each individual server in Case A, decisions that can be made under the contract include

determining the type or quantity of output produced as well as if or when output is produced, assuming

that the supplier lacks the right to change the physical location of the servers. For example, the available

decisions include

 Whether a server hosts a particular software package or stores customer data (type)

 How much data a server processes (quantity)

 Whether a server is available continuously or only runs at particular times (when)

 Whether a server performs a function in the network or is taken offline (whether)

The contract specifies the level of network services, but does not stipulate how those services will be

provided using the identified assets. Decisions about how and for what purpose each server will be used

in the performance of the network services are made by the supplier over the term of the contract. Since

the customer does not have the right to make the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the

identified assets (servers) are used, the contract for network services is not, and does not contain, a

lease.

A key indicator that a contract conveys the right to direct the use of specified assets that are not in the

customer’s possession is whether customer has dispatch rights under the contract. In other words, if the

customer can determine if and when the identified assets are used to generate output, then it is more

likely that the contract is or contains a lease. In Example 10, Case A, the customer lacks dispatch rights

with respect to the identified assets (each individual server). In other words, the customer cannot

determine if or when each server generates output, even though the server is located on the customer’s

premises.

Components 84

3. Components

Once an entity determines that a contract is or contains a lease, it must separate the contract into lease

and nonlease components. A lease component represents the portion of a contract that meets the

definition of a lease, and is the unit of account by which leases are classified and recorded. A lease

component may represent the right to use one underlying asset or the right to use multiple underlying

assets if the right to use a single underlying asset does not meet the definition of a lease on its own. In

paragraph BC146 of ASU 2016-02, the FASB noted that the guidance on identifying separate lease

components is similar to the guidance on identifying separate performance obligations in ASC 606, and

that the Board expects the guidance in each Topic to be applied in a similar manner.

Other provisions in a contract that require the lessor to transfer goods or services to the lessee, such as

maintenance services and supplies such as toner and paper in a contract to use a copy machine, are

nonlease components. Payments associated with administrative tasks required to set up a contract or

initiate a lease, and reimbursement or payment of the lessor’s costs, do not represent components of a

contract.

Under ASC 842, the consideration in the contract must be measured and allocated among lease and

nonlease components. Lessees must allocate consideration based on the components’ relative stand-

alone prices. Lessors must perform this allocation based on components’ relative stand-alone selling

prices, similar to how the transaction price in a revenue arrangement is allocated under ASC 606.

3.1 Identifying lease and nonlease components

The initial and subsequent measurement guidance in ASC 842 applies only to lease components, so an

entity must ensure that it has properly identified the lease and nonlease components in a contract before

applying the lease accounting guidance. Within a contract, a lease component represents the customer’s

right to control the use of an identified asset, whereas a nonlease component represents any other good

or service transferred to the lessee. For example, in a typical contract to use identified space in a multi-

unit office building, the lease component is the right to control the use of the office space, and a nonlease

component is the lessee’s right to receive common area maintenance services from the building owner.

Entities account for nonlease components based on other relevant U.S. GAAP, such as ASC 606.

3.1.1 Lease components

When there are multiple assets identified in a contract, an entity must evaluate each underlying asset to

determine whether the right to use that asset is a separate lease component within the contract. This

evaluation focuses on two criteria that must be met in order to account for a lease component separately

from other lease components in a contract:

1. The lessee can benefit from the right to use the underlying asset either on its own or with other

“readily available” resources.

2. The right to use the underlying asset is neither highly dependent on, nor highly interrelated with,

rights to use other underlying assets in the contract.

Components 85

ASC 842-10-15-28

After determining that a contract contains a lease in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-15-2 through

15-27, an entity shall identify the separate lease components within the contract. An entity shall

consider the right to use an underlying asset to be a separate lease component (that is, separate from

any other lease components of the contract) if both of the following criteria are met:

a. The lessee can benefit from the right of use either on its own or together with other resources that

are readily available to the lessee. Readily available resources are goods or services that are sold

or leased separately (by the lessor or other suppliers) or resources that the lessee already has

obtained (from the lessor or from other transactions or events).

b. The right of use is neither highly dependent on nor highly interrelated with the other right(s) to use

underlying assets in the contract. A lessee’s right to use an underlying asset is highly dependent

on or highly interrelated with another right to use an underlying asset if each right of use

significantly affects the other.

To evaluate the first criterion, an entity should consider whether an underlying asset can be used on its

own, or whether using the asset requires other inputs or interaction with other assets. Therefore, an entity

must consider whether the resources needed to benefit from the right to use an identified asset are

“readily available,” which the guidance in ASC 842 describes as goods or services that are sold

separately, either by the lessor or by other suppliers, or resources that the lessee has already obtained.

To evaluate the second criterion, an entity should consider whether each right of use significantly affects

the others. Example 13 in ASC 842-10-55 illustrates a situation where rights of use are highly

interdependent or interrelated.

Example 13—Lease of a Turbine Plant (excerpt)

ASC 842-10-55-146

Lessor leases a gas-fired turbine plant to Lessee for eight years so that Lessee can produce electricity

for its customers. The plant consists of the turbine housed within a building together with the land on

which the building sits. The building was designed specifically to house the turbine, has a similar

economic life as the turbine of approximately 15 years, and has no alternative use. The lease does not

transfer ownership of any of the underlying assets to Lessee or grant Lessee an option to purchase any

of the underlying assets. Lessor does not obtain a residual value guarantee from Lessee or any other

unrelated third party. The present value of the lease payments is not substantially all of the aggregate

fair value of the three underlying assets.

ASC 842-10-55-147

While the lease of the plant includes the lease of multiple underlying assets, the leases of those

underlying assets do not meet the second criterion necessary to be separate lease components, which

is that the right to use the underlying asset is neither dependent on nor highly interrelated with the other

rights of use in the contract. Therefore, the contract contains only one lease component. The rights to

use the turbine, the building, and the land are highly interrelated because each is an input to the

Components 86

customized combined item for which Lessee has contracted (that is, the right to use a gas-fired turbine

plant that can produce electricity for distribution to Lessee’s customers).

Based on the guidance in Example 13, an entity should evaluate whether the rights to use two or more

assets are inputs to a combined item when determining whether rights of use are highly interrelated in a

leasing contract. It is important for an entity to consider whether the lessee has contracted for the right to

use each asset separately or together to produce a single output.

In a contract that is or contains a lease, a right to use an underlying asset that does not meet the two

criteria for separation must be combined with another right of use, so that the combined right of use

meets both criteria. The combined right of use is then accounted for as a single lease component.

Case A of Example 11 in ASC 842-10-55 illustrates how an entity would apply these criteria in a contract

to use construction equipment.

Example 11—Allocation of Consideration to Lease and Nonlease Components

of a Contract (excerpt)

Case A—Allocation of Consideration in the Contract

ASC 842-10-55-132

Lessor leases a bulldozer, a truck, and a crane to Lessee to be used in Lessee’s construction

operations for three years. Lessor also agrees to maintain each piece of equipment throughout the

lease term. The total consideration in the contract is $600,000, payable in $200,000 annual

installments.

ASC 842-10-55-133

Lessee and Lessor both conclude that the leases of the bulldozer, the truck, and the crane are each

separate lease components because both of the criteria in paragraph 842-10-15-28 are met. That is:

a. The criterion in paragraph 842-10-15-28(a) is met because Lessee can benefit from each of the

three pieces of equipment on its own or together with other readily available resources (for

example, Lessee could readily lease or purchase an alternative truck or crane to use with the

bulldozer).

b. The criterion in paragraph 842-10-15-28(b) is met because, despite the fact that Lessee is leasing

all three machines for one purpose (that is, to engage in construction operations), the machines

are not highly dependent on or highly interrelated with each other. The machines are not, in effect,

inputs to a combined single item for which Lessee is contracting. Lessor can fulfill each of its

obligations to lease one of the underlying assets independently of its fulfillment of the other lease

obligations, and Lessee’s ability to derive benefit from the lease of each piece of equipment is not

significantly affected by its decision to lease or not lease the other equipment from Lessor.

ASC 842-10-55-134

In accordance with paragraph 842-10-15-31, Lessee and Lessor will account for the nonlease

maintenance services components separate from the three separate lease components (unless Lessee

elects the practical expedient in paragraph 842-10-15-37 or Lessor elects the practical expedient in

paragraph 842-10-15-42A when the conditions in that paragraph are met—see Case B [paragraphs

Components 87

842-10-55-138 through 55-140] for an example in which Lessee elects the practical expedient). In

accordance with the identifying performance obligations guidance in paragraphs 606-10-25-19 through

25-22, Lessor further concludes that its maintenance services for each piece of leased equipment are

distinct and therefore separate performance obligations, resulting in the conclusion that there are three

separate lease components and three separate nonlease components (that is, three maintenance

service performance obligations).

In Example 11, Case A, although the pieces of construction equipment are used together in Lessee’s

construction operations, the bulldozer, truck, and crane are not inputs to a combined single item, unlike

the building and the turbine in Example 13. In other words, in Example 11, Lessee could benefit from the

right to use the bulldozer in its construction activities without obtaining the right to use the truck or the

crane from Lessor, whereas in Example 13, Lessee could not benefit from the right to use the building

without also obtaining the right to use the gas-fired turbine from Lessor.

Leases of land and other assets

A lease involving land and other assets is not evaluated for separate lease components in the same

manner as other leases involving multiple assets. The guidance in ASC 842 requires an entity to account

for the right to use land as a separate lease component unless the accounting effect of separately

accounting for the land component would be insignificant. An entity should not consider whether the

lessee can benefit from the right to use land on its own or whether the right to use the land is highly

dependent on, or highly interrelated with, other rights of use in the contract. ASC 842 provides two

examples of situations where the “accounting effect” of separating the land component is insignificant:

(1) separating the land component would not change the classification of any lease component in the

contract, and (2) the amount recognized for the land lease component would be insignificant. In

paragraph BC147 of ASU 2016-02, the Board notes that there may be additional circumstances in which

the accounting effect of separating the land component would be insignificant, beyond the two examples

provided in ASC 842.

ASC 842-10-15-29

The guidance in paragraph 842-10-15-28 notwithstanding, to classify and account for a lease of land

and other assets, an entity shall account for the right to use land as a separate lease component

unless the accounting effect of doing so would be insignificant (for example, separating the land

element would have no effect on lease classification of any lease component or the amount recognized

for the land lease component would be insignificant).

To determine whether separating a land component would affect lease classification, an entity might

perform two lease classification assessments: one assuming the contract contains a single lease

component, and another assuming the contract contains multiple lease components (for example, rights

to use a building and land). However, it is not necessary in all cases to perform multiple classification

tests to decide whether a contract involving the right to use land contains a single lease component.

In some cases, it will be clear that separating the land component would have no impact on the

classification outcome, but in other cases, an entity will need to allocate the consideration in the contract

and perform a quantitative analysis to determine whether separate accounting for lease components is

required.

Components 88

Assessing the right to use land as a lease component

Consider the following two scenarios in which an entity evaluates whether the right to use land

represents a separate lease component.

Scenario 1

Lessee is a professional services firm that leases a suite in a high-rise office building with a lease term

of three years. Lessee is leasing less than 1 percent of the usable square footage of the high-rise

building. The land beneath the building—the footprint of the high rise—is shared by all of the tenants.

Scenario 2

Lessee is a major grocery store chain that leases anchor tenant space in a strip shopping center with a

lease term of 20 years. The leased space represents 65 percent of the usable space of the shopping

center. The land beneath the grocery store is used only by Lessee.

Analysis

In Scenario 1, Lessee qualitatively determines that separating the land component from the building

component would have an insignificant effect on its accounting for the arrangement and therefore does

not separately account for the land component of the contract. To make this assessment, Lessee

considers that the lease term likely represents a minor percentage of the building’s economic life and

that the land beneath the building is shared by many tenants. Therefore, it is unlikely that Lessee’s

separate accounting for its right to use its “share” of the land would have a significant impact on its

accounting for the arrangement. Lessee might also consider whether it lacks an exclusive right to use

any portion of the land beneath the building.

In Scenario 2, Lessee performs a more rigorous analysis of whether the accounting impact of not

separating the land and the building lease components would be insignificant. In this scenario, the lease

term likely represents more than a minor percentage of the building’s remaining economic life, and the

right to use the land beneath the leased building space is not shared by any other tenants. Without

performing a quantitative analysis, it would be difficult for Lessee to determine whether separating the

land component would have an insignificant effect on its accounting for the arrangement.

The following excerpt from Example 13 in ASC 842-10-55 continues the discussion previously included in

this section to illustrate how an entity assesses a lease that includes land and other assets. In this case,

the contract conveys the right to use a gas-fired turbine, the building the turbine is housed in, and the land

beneath the building.

Example 13—Lease of a Turbine Plant (excerpt)

ASC 842-10-55-148

… [B]ecause the contract contains the lease of land, Lessee and Lessor also must consider the

guidance in paragraph 842-10-15-29. Lessee and Lessor each conclude that the effect of accounting

for the right to use the land as a separate lease component would be insignificant because Lessee’s

right to use the turbine, the building, and the land is coterminous and separating the right to use the

land from the right to use the turbine and the building would not affect the lease classification of the

Components 89

turbine/building lease component. Lessee and Lessor each conclude that a single lease component

comprising the turbine, the building, and the land would be classified as an operating lease, as would

two separate lease components comprising the land and the turbine/building, respectively.

At the crossroads: Leases involving land

The guidance for leases involving land under ASC 842 differs from the legacy guidance for leases

involving land and buildings that do not meet the legacy transfer-of-ownership or bargain-purchase-

option classification criteria. Under ASC 840-10-25-38(b), if the fair value of the land is less than

25 percent of the total fair value of the leased property at lease inception, the lessee would combine

the land and the building and account for them as a single lease component.

Under the new guidance in ASC 842-10-15-29, this expedient is no longer available. An entity leasing

land and other assets must account for the right to use land as a separate lease component, unless

doing so would have an insignificant effect on the accounting.

3.1.2 Nonlease components

Many contracts provide goods or services in addition to the right to use an underlying asset. For example,

contracts that convey the right to use equipment often include maintenance services related to the

equipment. Contracts that convey the right to use real estate often provide common area maintenance

services, which include activities like plowing snow from the parking lot in the winter or hiring a window

washer to clean the exterior windows in an office building. Contracts can also include a promise to

provide goods related to the leased asset under a supply agreement, such as providing toner for a leased

copy machine. These services and goods are considered nonlease components in a contract, and are

allocated a portion of the consideration in the contract, as discussed in Section 3.2.2 and 3.3.2.

At the crossroads: Accounting for maintenance activities

The accounting for maintenance activities under ASC 842 is a departure from the way these activities

are accounted for under legacy GAAP. Under ASC 840, costs related to maintenance activities are

generally treated as executory costs, based on the following definition of “minimum lease payments” in

ASC 840-10-20:

Minimum lease payments comprise the payments that the lessee is obligated to make or can be

required to make in connection with the leased property, excluding both of the following:

a) Contingent rentals

b) Any guarantee by the lessee of the lessor’s debt and the lessee’s obligation to pay (apart from

the rental payments) executory costs such as insurance, maintenance, and taxes in connection

with the leased property.

Under ASC 842, payments related to maintenance activities are consideration for a nonlease

component of the contract, unlike payments that reimburse the lessor for the lessor’s insurance and tax

Components 90

obligations. Therefore, the service that the lessor provides through maintenance activities is allocated a

portion of the total consideration in the contract.

Lessor guarantees as nonlease components

A lessor should evaluate a commitment to guarantee the performance of an underlying asset, or to

effectively protect the lessee from an underlying asset’s obsolescence, based on the guidance on

warranties in ASC 606-10-55-30 through 55-35. If the lessor’s commitment goes beyond a typical product

warranty, that commitment may itself be a service that the lessor is providing to the lessee, which would

be treated as a nonlease component under ASC 842 and accounted for under ASC 606.

ASC 842-10-55-33

A lessor should evaluate a commitment to guarantee performance of the underlying asset or to

effectively protect the lessee from obsolescence of the underlying asset in accordance with paragraphs

606-10-55-30 through 55-35 on warranties. If the lessor’s commitment is more extensive than a typical

product warranty, it might indicate that the commitment is providing a service to the lessee that should

be accounted for as a nonlease component of the contract.

At the crossroads: Lessor guarantees

Under legacy GAAP, performance guarantees and warranties that protect a lessee from an underlying

asset’s obsolescence are considered in a lessor’s lease classification analysis. A lessor would often

classify a lease containing such a feature as an operating lease under legacy guidance. In contrast,

these types of warranties do not preclude a lessor from accounting for a lease as a sales type or a

direct financing lease under ASC 842. However, the warranty might represent a separate component

that requires an allocation of some of the consideration in the contract.

The guidance in ASC 606 on warranties is included here for reference.

ASC 606-10-55-30

It is common for an entity to provide (in accordance with the contract, the law, or the entity’s customary

business practices) a warranty in connection with the sale of a product (whether a good or service).

The nature of a warranty can vary significantly across industries and contracts. Some warranties

provide a customer with assurance that the related product will function as the parties intended

because it complies with agreed-upon specifications. Other warranties provide the customer with a

service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications.

ASC 606-10-55-31

If a customer has the option to purchase a warranty separately (for example, because the warranty is

priced or negotiated separately), the warranty is a distinct service because the entity promises to

provide the service to the customer in addition to the product that has the functionality described in the

Components 91

contract. In those circumstances, an entity should account for the promised warranty as a performance

obligation in accordance with paragraphs 606-10-25-14 through 25-22 and allocate a portion of the

transaction price to that performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 606-10-32-28 through

32-41.

ASC 606-10-55-32

If a customer does not have the option to purchase a warranty separately, an entity should account for

the warranty in accordance with the guidance on product warranties in Subtopic 460-10 on guarantees,

unless the promised warranty, or a part of the promised warranty, provides the customer with a service

in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications.

ASC 606-10-55-33

In assessing whether a warranty provides a customer with a service in addition to the assurance that

the product complies with agreed-upon specifications, an entity should consider factors such as:

a. Whether the warranty is required by law—If the entity is required by law to provide a warranty, the

existence of that law indicates that the promised warranty is not a performance obligation because

such requirements typically exist to protect customers from the risk of purchasing defective

products.

b. The length of the warranty coverage period—The longer the coverage period, the more likely it is

that the promised warranty is a performance obligation because it is more likely to provide a

service in addition to the assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications.

c. The nature of the tasks that the entity promises to perform—If it is necessary for an entity to

perform specified tasks to provide the assurance that a product complies with agreed-upon

specifications (for example, a return shipping service for a defective product), then those tasks

likely do not give rise to a performance obligation.

ASC 606-10-55-34

If a warranty, or a part of a warranty, provides a customer with a service in addition to the assurance

that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications, the promised service is a performance

obligation. Therefore, an entity should allocate the transaction price to the product and the service. If

an entity promises both an assurance-type warranty and a service-type warranty but cannot reasonably

account for them separately, the entity should account for both of the warranties together as a single

performance obligation.

ASC 606-10-55-35

A law that requires an entity to pay compensation if its products cause harm or damage does not give

rise to a performance obligation. For example, a manufacturer might sell products in a jurisdiction in

which the law holds the manufacturer liable for any damages (for example, to personal property) that

might be caused by a consumer using a product for its intended purpose. Similarly, an entity’s promise

to indemnify the customer for liabilities and damages arising from claims of patent, copyright,

trademark, or other infringement by the entity’s products does not give rise to a performance obligation.

The entity should account for such obligations in accordance with the guidance on loss contingencies

in Subtopic 450-20 on contingencies.

Components 92

3.1.3 Activities and payments that do not represent separate components

Only activities that either convey the right to use an asset or transfer a good or a service to a lessee are

considered components in a contract. Therefore, administrative tasks undertaken by lessees and lessors

to set up a contract, and a lessee’s payments to reimburse the lessor for costs incurred in connection to

the contract, do not represent separate components of a contract. Therefore, any payments made with

respect to administrative tasks and reimbursements of the lessor’s costs incurred in its role as lessor or

owner of the underlying asset are included in the consideration in the contract on the same basis as other

payments, and are allocated to lease and nonlease components, unless the payments are within the

scope of ASC 842-10-15-40A, as described in Section 3.3.1. A common contractual provision that does

not represent a separate component of a contract is a requirement for a lessee to pay property taxes and

insurance premiums on the lessor’s behalf. These provisions do not involve the transfer of a good or

service to the lessee and therefore do not represent separate components of a contract. In other words,

the counterparties to the property tax and insurance arrangements are the lessor (that is, the property

owner) and either the taxing authority or the insurer, respectively. The lessee is not a direct beneficiary to

either arrangement.

ASC 842-10-15-30

The consideration in the contract shall be allocated to each separate lease component and nonlease

component of the contract (see paragraphs 842-10-15-33 through 15-37 for lessee allocation guidance

and paragraphs 842-10-15-38 through 15-42 for lessor allocation guidance). Components of a contract

include only those items or activities that transfer a good or service to the lessee. Consequently, the

following are not components of a contract and do not receive an allocation of the consideration in the

contract:

a. Administrative tasks to set up a contract or initiate the lease that do not transfer a good or service

to the lessee

b. Reimbursement or payment of the lessor’s costs. For example, a lessor may incur various costs in

its role as a lessor or as owner of the underlying asset. A requirement for the lessee to pay those

costs, whether directly to a third party or as a reimbursement to the lessor, does not transfer a

good or service to the lessee separate from the right to use the underlying asset.

ASC 842-10-15-31

An entity shall account for each separate lease component separately from the nonlease components

of the contract (that is, unless a lessee makes the accounting policy election described in paragraph

842-10-15-37). Nonlease components are not within the scope of this Topic and shall be accounted for

in accordance with other Topics.

In paragraph BC158 of ASU 2016-02, the Board clarified that a lessee’s payments made directly to a third

party on the lessor’s behalf should not be associated with a separate nonlease component because the

payments (1) are not associated with a service provided by the lessor to the lessee, and (2) relate to an

obligation of the lessor rather than the lessee.

In paragraph BC160, the Board notes that the majority of payments in a lease contract represent

reimbursement of a lessor’s costs in some form or another. For this reason, the Board felt it was

necessary to include specific guidance on identifying components that should be allocated consideration

under the contract.

Components 93

ASU 2016-02

BC158 (excerpt)

… [T]he Board decided to provide guidance in Topic 842 on what constitutes a component in a contract

and to clarify that only components get an allocation of the consideration in the contract. The Board

decided that activities (or costs of the lessor) that do not transfer a good or service to the lessee

are not components in a contract. For example, an entity would not account for a portion of the

consideration in the contract that is attributable to paying the lessor’s property taxes (or its hazard

insurance) as a component if the lessor is the primary obligor for those taxes (or insurance) and the

amounts paid are not for a service (for example, maintenance or operations services) provided by the

lessor to the lessee.

BC160

The Board further noted that, beyond items like property taxes and hazard insurance, a lessee’s

payments are almost always reimbursing costs of the lessor, all the way down to the profit margin.

Therefore, the Board decided that guidance of this nature was necessary to ensure that entities only

allocated the consideration in the contract to those items or activities that actually provide a good or

service to the lessee.

Example 12 in ASC 842-10-55 provides guidance for determining whether certain activities or payments

represent components of a contract.

Example 12—Activities or Costs That Are Not Components of a Contract

Case A—Payments for Taxes and Insurance Are Variable

ASC 842-10-55-141

Lessor and Lessee enter into a five-year lease of a building. The contract designates that Lessee is

required to pay for the costs relating to the asset, including the real estate taxes and the insurance on

the building. The real estate taxes would be owed by Lessor regardless of whether it leased the

building and who the lessee is. Lessor is the named insured on the building insurance policy (that is,

the insurance protects Lessor’s investment in the building, and Lessor will receive the proceeds from

any claim). The annual lease payments are fixed at $10,000 per year, while the annual real estate

taxes and insurance premium will vary and be billed by Lessor to Lessee each year.

ASC 842-10-55-142

The real estate taxes and the building insurance are not components of the contract. The contract

includes a single lease component— the right to use the building. Lessee’s payments of those amounts

solely represent a reimbursement of Lessor’s costs and do not represent payments for goods or

services in addition to the right to use the building. However, because the real estate taxes and

insurance premiums during the lease term are variable, those payments are variable lease payments

that do not depend on an index or a rate and are excluded from the measurement of the lease liability

and recognized by Lessee in profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 842-20-25-5 or 842-20-25-6.

Components 94

Lessor also recognizes those payments as variable lease payments in accordance with paragraph 842-

10-15-40A because the real estate taxes and insurance premiums are paid by Lessor to the taxing

jurisdiction and insurance company and reimbursed by Lessee to Lessor. However, if Lessee paid the

costs directly to the third parties, those lessor costs would not be recognized by Lessor as variable

payments because of the requirement in paragraph 842-10-15-40A.Case B—Payments for Taxes and

Insurance Are Fixed

ASC 842-10-55-143

Assume the same facts and circumstances as in Case A (paragraphs 842-10-55-141 through 55-142),

except that the fixed annual lease payment is $13,000. There are no additional payments for real

estate taxes or building insurance; however, the fixed payment is itemized in the contract (that is,

$10,000 for rent, $2,000 for real estate taxes, and $1,000 for building insurance). Consistent with

Case A, the taxes and insurance are not components of the contract. The contract includes a single

lease component, the right to use the building. The $65,000 in payments Lessee will make over the

5-year lease term are all lease payments for the single component of the contract and, therefore, are

included in the measurement of the lease liability.

Case C—Common Area Maintenance

ASC 842-10-55-144

Assume the same facts and circumstances as in Case B (paragraph 842-10-55-143), except that the

lease is of space within the building, rather than for the entire building, and the fixed annual lease

payment of $13,000 also covers Lessor’s performance of common area maintenance activities (for

example, cleaning of common areas, parking lot maintenance, and providing utilities to the building).

Consistent with Case B, the taxes and insurance are not components of the contract. However, the

common area maintenance is a component because Lessor’s activities transfer services to Lessee.

That is, Lessee receives a service from Lessor in the form of the common area maintenance activities

it would otherwise have to undertake itself or pay another party to provide (for example, cleaning the

lobby for its customers, removing snow from the parking lot for its employees and customers, and

providing utilities). The common area maintenance is a single component in this contract rather than

multiple components, because Lessor performs the activities as needed (for example, plows snow or

undertakes minor repairs when and as necessary) over the same period of time.

ASC 842-10-55-145

Therefore, the contract in Case C includes two components—a lease component (that is, the right to

use the building) and a nonlease component. The consideration in the contract of $65,000 is allocated

between those 2 components (unless Lessee elects the practical expedient in paragraph 842-10-15-37

or Lessor elects the practical expedient in paragraph 842-10-15-42A when the conditions in that

paragraph are met).The amount allocated to the lease component is the lease payments in accounting

for the lease.

At the crossroads: Lease components

The requirement to separate an agreement into lease and nonlease components in ASC 842 is not

new—it is a requirement under legacy GAAP as well. However, the implications of separating the lease

and nonlease components of a contract under ASC 842 are more significant than under legacy GAAP,

Components 95

particularly for lessees. Properly identifying lease and nonlease components can have a significant

accounting impact under ASC 842 because (1) a lessee in an operating lease is required to recognize

an asset and a liability associated with the right to use the underlying asset, and (2) measurement of

the asset and liability excludes cash flows associated with nonlease components (unless a practical

expedient is elected). In contrast, separating lease and nonlease components under legacy guidance

frequently has an insignificant impact on a lessee’s financial statements since (1) there is limited

balance-sheet reporting associated with an operating lease, such that allocating more or less

consideration to the nonlease component(s) does not decrease or increase, respectively, the carrying

amount of a right-of-use asset and lease liability, and (2) the statement of comprehensive income

recognition pattern for the lease and nonlease components in an operating lease is often the same.

3.1.4 Obligations to pay lessor taxes and insurance premiums

The lessor in Example 12 of ASC 842-10-55 is required, as the owner of the building, to pay both property

taxes to the municipality in which the building is located and premiums to an insurance company for

property insurance. In Example 12, these costs do not represent components of the contract based on

two factors:

1. The lessor would owe the property taxes to the taxing authority regardless of whether it leases the

building and who the lessee is.

2. The lessor is the named insured on the policy, meaning that the insurance protects the lessor’s

investment in the building, and the lessor would receive any proceeds from a claim made under the

policy.

Grant Thornton insights: Evaluation of taxes and insurance paid by a lessee

Based on Example 12, we believe that amounts paid by a lessee to reimburse the lessor pursuant to a

contract that contains a lease would not represent components of the contract if either (a) the lessor

would incur the cost regardless of whether the asset is leased and who the lessee is, or (b) the lessor

is the primary beneficiary of the payment.

If a lessor and lessee both enter into and benefit from an insurance policy, such as a vehicle insurance

policy that provides collision and liability coverage, an entity might determine that the lessor is the

primary beneficiary of the collision coverage and that the lessee is the primary beneficiary of the liability

coverage.

If an insurance policy transfers a service to the lessee and therefore contains a nonlease component,

such as the liability coverage mentioned above, we believe that an entity should carve out the cash

flows associated with the nonlease component from the total insurance payment. In other words, we

believe the guidance in ASC 842 requires an entity to bifurcate the insurance payments into portions

related to lease and nonlease components of the contract, if the effect is material.

3.1.5 Lessee practical expedient

A lessee is permitted, as a practical expedient, to make an accounting policy election to combine a lease

component with its associated nonlease component(s) into a single lease component by class of

Components 96

underlying asset. Electing this expedient may simplify the accounting and reduce the administrative

burden for lessees, but will result in a higher carrying value for the right-of-use asset and lease liability.

ASC 842-10-15-37

As a practical expedient, a lessee may, as an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset,

choose not to separate nonlease components from lease components and instead to account for each

separate lease component and the nonlease components associated with that lease component as a

single lease component.

Case B from Example 11 of ASC 842-10-55 shows how to apply this expedient (refer to Case A from

Example 11 in Section 3.1.1 for the background information related to this example). If the lessee in

Example 11 elects the practical expedient for the class of underlying assets that includes construction

equipment, the lessee would identify three lease components in the contract, one for each identified asset

in the contract. Each lease component would include the right to use the underlying asset and the

maintenance services associated with the right to use that particular asset.

Example 11—Allocation of Consideration to Lease and Nonlease Components

of a Contract

Case B—Lessee Elects Practical Expedient Not to Separate Lease from Nonlease Components

ASC 842-10-55-138

Assume the same facts and circumstances as in Case A (paragraphs 842-10-55-132 through 55-137),

except that Lessee has made an accounting policy election to use the practical expedient to not

separate nonlease from lease components for its leased construction equipment. Consequently,

Lessee does not separate the maintenance services from the related lease components but, instead,

accounts for the contract as containing only three lease components.

ASC 842-10-55-139

Because Lessor regularly leases each piece of equipment bundled together with maintenance services

on a standalone basis, there are observable standalone prices for each of the three combined

components, each of which includes the lease and the maintenance services. Because each of the

three separate lease components includes the lease of the equipment and the related maintenance

services, the observable standalone price for each component in this scenario is greater than the

observable standalone price for each separate lease component that does not include the maintenance

services in Case A.

ASC 842-10-55-140

Lessee allocates the consideration in the contract ($600,000) to the three separate lease components

on a relative basis utilizing the observable standalone selling price of each separate lease component

(inclusive of maintenance services) and then accounts for each separate lease component in

accordance with the guidance in Subtopic 842-20, treating the allocated consideration as the lease

Components 97

payments for each separate lease component. The standalone prices for each of the three combined

lease components is as follows.

Standalone

Price

Relative

Standalone

Price

Bulldozer

$ 230,000

$ 215,625

Truck

130,000

121,875

Crane

280,000

262,500

$ 640,000

$ 600,000

3.1.6 Lessor practical expedient

The Board provided a practical expedient allowing lessors to combine lease and associated nonlease

components in contracts meeting certain criteria. A lessor making this election accounts for the lease and

its associated nonlease component(s) as a single lease component. A lessor may apply the expedient if

(1) the timing and pattern of transfer for the lease component and the nonlease component are the same,

and (2) the lease component on its own would be classified as an operating lease. Lessors may elect this

expedient by class of underlying asset.

A lessor electing the practical expedient must apply it consistently to all lease and nonlease components

eligible to be combined in that class of underlying asset. Lessors must disclose the election of the

practical expedient as an accounting policy in the notes to the financial statements.

ASC 842-10-15-42A

As a practical expedient, a lessor may, as an accounting policy election, by class of underlying asset,

choose to not separate nonlease components from lease components and, instead, to account for

each separate lease component and the nonlease components associated with that lease component

as a single component if the nonlease components otherwise would be accounted for under Topic 606

on revenue from contracts with customers and both of the following are met:

a. The timing and pattern of transfer for the lease component and nonlease components associated

with that lease component are the same.

b. The lease component, if accounted for separately, would be classified as an operating lease in

accordance with paragraphs 842-10-25-2 through 25-3.

Components 98

Figure 3.1: Overview of lessor practical expedient to combine lease and nonlease components

Qualifying for the practical expedient

In order to be combined into a single component, the nonlease component must otherwise qualify to be

accounted for under ASC 606 and the lease and nonlease components must meet the following criteria:

 The lease component, if accounted for separately, meets the criteria to be classified as an operating

lease.

 The timing and pattern of transfer of lease and nonlease components to the customer are the same.

Lease component is an operating lease

One of the criteria to apply the practical expedient is that the lease component, if accounted for

separately from the nonlease component, must qualify to be classified as an operating lease. As a result,

nonlease components associated with sales-type and direct financing leases cannot be combined.

A lessor classifies a lease as a sales-type lease if it meets any one of the five criteria discussed in

Section 4.1. On the other hand, a lessor classifies a lease as a direct financing lease if it meets both of

the criteria shown in Section 4.2. Finally, to be classified as an operating lease, the lease must not meet

any of the sales-type criteria and may meet one, but not both, of the direct financing criteria, as discussed

in Section 4.2.

In paragraph BC30 of ASU 2018-11 Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements, the FASB notes that an

entity may use a reasonable qualitative rather than quantitative analysis to determine whether a lease

component would qualify as an operating lease if it were accounted for separately from the nonlease

Components 99

component. This guidance should ease the burden of analysis and documentation for lessors looking to

take advantage of this expedient.

Same timing and pattern of transfer

Another criterion that should be met to qualify for the practical expedient is that the lease component and

nonlease component must have the same timing and pattern of transfer, and the nonlease component, if

accounted for separately, would be accounted for under ASC 606. A lessor must determine whether the

nonlease component is transferred over time or at a point in time under ASC 606. In an operating lease, a

lessor transfers the right to use the underlying asset over time, which means that the nonlease

component must also be transferred over time to qualify for the practical expedient.

In paragraph BC27 of ASU 2018-11, the FASB indicates that an entity should apply the series guidance

in ASC 606-10-25-15 to determine whether the pattern of transfer is the same for the lease and nonlease

components, which should result in a consistent application of the concepts in ASC 842 and ASC 606. To

apply the series guidance to lease and nonlease components, an entity must meet the following two

criteria:

1. The transfer of goods or services for both the lease and nonlease components is recognized over

time.

2. The measurement used to recognize the progress of transferring the goods and services over time is

the same for both the lease and nonlease component.

ASC 606-10-25-15

A series of distinct goods or services has the same pattern of transfer to the customer if both of the

following criteria are met:

a. Each distinct good or service in the series that the entity promises to transfer to the customer would

meet the criteria in paragraph 606-10-25-27 to be a performance obligation satisfied over time.

b. In accordance with paragraphs 606-10-25-31 through 25-32, the same method would be used to

measure the entity’s progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligation to

transfer each distinct good or service in the series to the customer.

Grant Thornton insights: Pattern of transfer versus pattern of recognition

To qualify for the practical expedient, a lessor should evaluate whether the pattern of transfer, not the

pattern of revenue recognition, is the same for both the nonlease and lease components (that is, over

time). Under ASC 842, variable payments that are not based on an index or a rate are excluded from

the definition of lease payments. What’s more, variable payments allocated to a lease component are

not recognized as lease revenue until the events causing the payments to vary have been resolved,

which causes revenue recognition for lease components with variable payments to differ from those

with fixed payments. The emphasis on the pattern of transfer rather than the pattern of revenue

recognition ensures that nonlease components with variable payments may qualify for the expedient.

For example, it is common for a building lease to include common area maintenance services. The

payments for these services are often based on actual amounts expended by the lessor and therefore

Components 100

are considered variable payments, which are excluded from the definition of lease payments in

ASC 842. The pattern of transferring the right to use the building occurs over time throughout the lease

term. The pattern of transferring the services for common area maintenance also generally occurs over

time, as the lessee benefits from the services throughout the lease term. Said differently, the pattern of

transfer of services does not change based on whether the payments for the services are variable or

fixed.

Example: Combining lease and nonlease components

Lessor enters into a contract that grants Lessee the right to use three floors in an office building for

$30,000 per month over a three-year term. The contract requires Lessor to provide common area

maintenance for the duration of the lease.

Lessor determines that the right to use the space in the office building meets the definition of a lease.

Lessor also identifies a nonlease component: its obligation to provide common area maintenance.

Lessor analyzes the lease and determines that the lease should be classified as an operating lease

because it does not meet any of the five sales-type criteria or both of the two direct financing criteria.

Lessor then evaluates whether the timing and pattern of transfer of the common area maintenance is

the same as the timing and pattern of transfer of the lease component (use of the building), which will

be transferred over time. Lessor concludes that Lessee benefits from the common area maintenance

over time, and that the same method (over time) should be used to measure the progress of transferring

both the lease component and the nonlease component (common area maintenance).

Lessor chooses to apply the practical expedient to the building class of assets and combines the lease

component and the common area maintenance into a single component, as they meet the qualifying

criteria.

Contracts with multiple nonlease components

A lease contract may have multiple nonlease components. If a lease has multiple related nonlease

components, only the nonlease components that qualify for the practical expedient may be accounted for

as part of a combined component. Nonlease components that do not qualify, such as those that have a

different pattern of transfer than the lease component, should be accounted for separately. In this case

the lessor should measure the contract’s consideration and allocate it between the combined component

and the nonqualifying nonlease components accounted for separately.

ASC 842-10-15-42C

A lessor that elects the practical expedient in paragraph 842-10-15-42A shall combine all nonlease

components that qualify for the practical expedient with the associated lease component and shall

account for the combined component in accordance with paragraph 842-10-15-42B. A lessor

shall separately account for nonlease components that do not qualify for the practical expedient.

Accordingly, a lessor shall apply paragraphs 842-10-15-38 through 15-42 to account for nonlease

components that do not qualify for the practical expedient.

Components 101

Capitalized costs related to combined components

A lessor that elects to use the practical expedient to combine lease and nonlease components must also

apply it to the capitalized costs associated with those components under the contract, such as initial direct

costs or contract costs accounted for under ASC 340-40. In other words, the lessor must also combine

the capitalized costs related to the combined lease and nonlease components as required in the

allocation guidance in ASC 842-10-15-38.

Assessing ‘predominant’ component

Once a lessor has determined that the lease and nonlease components can be combined into a single

component, it should assess whether the nonlease component is the “predominant” portion in the

combined component. If the nonlease component is the predominant component, the combined

component is accounted for as a performance obligation under ASC 606.

A “predominant” nonlease component in a combined component is one that the lessor reasonably

expects a lessee to attribute more value to than its related lease component.

ASC 842-10-15-42B

A lessor that elects the practical expedient in paragraph 842-10-15-42A shall account for the combined

component:

a. As a single performance obligation in accordance with Topic 606 if the nonlease component or

components are the predominant component(s) of the combined component. In applying

Topic 606, the entity shall do both of the following:

1. Use the same measure of progress as used for applying paragraph 842-10-15-42A(a)

2. Account for all variable payments related to any good or service, including the lease, that is

part of the combined component in accordance with the guidance on variable consideration in

Topic 606.

b. Otherwise, as an operating lease entirely in accordance with this Topic. In applying this Topic, the

entity shall account for all variable payments related to any good or service that is part of the

combined component as variable lease payments.

In determining whether a nonlease component or components are the predominant component(s) of a

combined component, a lessor shall consider whether the lessee would be reasonably expected to

ascribe more value to the nonlease component(s) than to the lease component.

ASC 842-10-55-149 provides an example of how to determine which asset is predominant in a lease

component containing the right to use multiple assets. In the example, Lessee has a contract that

provides the right to use three assets: a turbine, a building housing the turbine, and the land upon which

the building and turbine sit. This example considers (1) the primary asset for which the lessee has

entered into the contract, and (2) whether the other components in the contract would have any use or

value to the lessee without the primary asset.

Components 102

These same considerations may be applied when assessing the predominance of lease or nonlease

components. In a building lease with common area maintenance services, for example, it is likely that the

lessee’s primary goal is to use space within the building, and that the maintenance services allow the

lessee to continue to use the building. In this situation, a lessor might conclude that the nonlease

component is not the predominant component and account for the combined component under ASC 842.

On the other hand, in a contract to provide internet services that are delivered via a modem owned by the

service provider, the primary goal is likely providing the internet services, and the lease of the modem

merely enables those services to be provided. In this case, the service provider might conclude that the

nonlease component is predominant and account for the combined component under ASC 606.

Example 13—Lease of a Turbine Plant (excerpt)

ASC 842-10-55-149

The predominant asset in the single lease component is the turbine. Lessee entered into the lease

primarily to obtain the power-generation capabilities of the turbine. The building and land enable Lessee

to obtain the benefits from use of the turbine. The land and building would have little, if any, use or value

to Lessee in this contract without the turbine. Therefore, the remaining economic life of the turbine is

considered in evaluating the classification of the single lease component

The concept of “predominant” is also used in ASC 606 and is illustrated in the discussion on sales-based

or usage-based royalties in ASC 606-10-55-65A. This guidance, similar to that in ASC 842, defines

“predominant” as an item that the entity reasonably expects the customer to attribute significantly more

value to than other goods or services in the contract.

ASC 606-10-55-65A

The guidance for a sales-based or usage-based royalty in paragraph 606-10-55-65 applies when the

royalty relates only to a license of intellectual property or when a license of intellectual property is the

predominant item to which the royalty relates (for example, the license of intellectual property may be

the predominant item to which the royalty relates when the entity has a reasonable expectation that the

customer would ascribe significantly more value to the license than to the other goods or services to

which the royalty relates).

Grant Thornton insights: Impact of applying ASC 842 versus ASC 606

The lessor’s accounting for variable payments in a contract is significantly different depending on

whether the combined contract is accounted for under ASC 606 or ASC 842. Variable payments not

included in the definition of lease payments are excluded from lease income until a change occurs in

facts and circumstances that triggers the variable payments.

If the lessor applies the revenue guidance in ASC 606, the combined component is accounted for as a

single performance obligation that is satisfied over time. The lessor would determine the transaction

Components 103

price in accordance with ASC 606, and estimate variable payments and apply the constraint described

in ASC 606-10-32. That estimate is then updated and the constraint reassessed each subsequent

reporting period.

For example, Lessor enters into a five-year building lease with Lessee in a contract that includes

common area maintenance (CAM) services. Lessor elects to combine lease and nonlease components

for the building asset class. The annual fixed payments in the lease are $100,000 per year, and CAM

costs will be charged to Lessee at Lessor’s actual cost, which Lessor estimates to be $10,000 per year.

If Lessor determines that the lease component is predominant, it would account for the combined

component under ASC 842. The payments for CAM costs represent variable payments, since they will

vary based on Lessor’s actual expenses. In accordance with ASC 842-10-30-6, variable payments

other than those based on an index or a rate are excluded from the definition of lease payments.

Therefore, Lessor excludes the variable payments from the consideration in the contract and calculates

contract consideration as $500,000. Lessor recognizes lease revenue on a straight-line basis over the

lease term. In year one, Lessor recognizes lease revenue of $100,000, and revenue based on the

actual CAM charges in the period they are incurred.

If Lessor determines that the CAM component is predominant, Lessor would account for the combined

component under ASC 606. In accordance with ASC 606-10-32-5 to 32-11, Lessor determines the

transaction price by combining the fixed payments of $100,000 and the variable CAM payments at their

estimated value, subject to the constraint in ASC 606-10-32, which limits the amount that may be

recorded to the amount at which it is probable that a significant revenue reversal will not occur. The

estimated CAM amount will be reevaluated at each reporting period. Lessor determines that the total

compensation in the contract is $550,000 ($500,000 fixed payments + $50,000 estimated CAM), which

it recognizes over time on a straight-line basis. In year one, actual CAM costs are $10,000, which is in

line with Lessor’s estimate. Lessor recognizes revenue of $110,000 in year one.

3.1.7 Contract combinations

An entity must consider whether separate contracts should be combined and evaluated as a single

contract. An entity is required to combine multiple contracts under ASC 842 when (1) the contracts are

negotiated as a package with the same commercial objective, (2) amounts payable under each contract

depend on one another, or (3) at least some of the rights to use the underlying assets in the contracts

represent a single lease component. The third criterion applies in situations where multiple contracts

contain rights to use assets that would not qualify as separate lease components if they were included in

a single contract. For example, if the lessee and lessor in Example 13 (ASC 842-10-55-146 through 55-

149) entered into separate contracts for use of the turbine and the building, then those contracts would be

combined on account of each right-of-use being highly dependent on and highly interrelated with the

other.

ASC 842-10-25-19

An entity shall combine two or more contracts, at least one of which is or contains a lease, entered into

at or near the same time with the same counterparty (or related parties) and consider the contracts as

a single transaction if any of the following criteria are met:

a. The contracts are negotiated as a package with the same commercial objective(s).

Components 104

b. The amount of consideration to be paid in one contract depends on the price or performance of the

other contract.

c. The rights to use underlying assets conveyed in the contracts (or some of the rights of use

conveyed in the contracts) are a single lease component in accordance with paragraph 842-10-15-

28.

3.2 Lessee measurement, allocation, and subsequent measurement of

consideration

It is important to properly identify the lease and nonlease components in a contract because ultimately the

consideration in the contract will be allocated to those components and then recognized based on the

appropriate guidance. Consideration allocated to lease components is recognized based on the guidance

in ASC 842, and consideration allocated to nonlease components is recognized based on other U.S.

GAAP, such as ASC 606 for revenue from contracts with customers.

The guidance on measuring and allocating the consideration in a contract differs for lessees and lessors.

This section addresses only lessee measurement and allocation.

3.2.1 Lessee measurement

For a lessee, the consideration in the contract includes three components:

 The payments described in ASC 842-10-30-5 and discussed in detail in Section 1.4

 Any fixed payments or in-substance fixed payments, less any incentives received or receivable from

the lessor, that are excluded from the payments described in ASC 842-10-30-5

 Any variable payments based on an index or rate that are excluded from the payments described in

ASC 842-10-30-5, initially measured using the index or rate at the lease commencement date

The first bullet in the list above references the guidance in ASC 842-10-30-5, which describes the items

that make up “lease payments.” However, it is not accurate to describe the first bullet in the list above

simply as “lease payments,” because ASC 842-10-30-6 goes on to state that “lease payments” exclude

amounts allocated to nonlease components in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-15-33 through 15-42.

Since the “consideration in the contract” is the amount allocated between lease and nonlease

components, the payments in the first bullet in the list above necessarily include the total amount of the

items specified in ASC 842-10-30-5 before any allocation to lease and nonlease components occurs. In

other words, the payments described in the first bullet above include nonlease payments if the contract

includes nonlease components.

Fixed and variable payments that are not specified in ASC 842-10-30-5 but are included in the

consideration in the contract, as discussed in the second and third bullets above, include fixed payments

and variable payments based on an index or rate that are not explicitly related to the use of the underlying

asset during the lease term. For example, a lessor might enter into a contract with a lessee to provide the

right to use a piece of equipment for $100 per year and to provide maintenance services related to the

equipment for $25 per year. Although the fixed annual payment of $25 does not explicitly relate to the use

of the underlying asset, it is nevertheless included in the consideration in the contract, along with the

$100 annual payment for the right to use the equipment.

Components 105

ASC 842-10-15-35

The consideration in the contract for a lessee includes all of the payments described in paragraph 842-

10-30-5, as well as all of the following payments that will be made during the lease term:

a. Any fixed payments (for example, monthly service charges) or in substance fixed payments, less

any incentives paid or payable to the lessee, other than those included in paragraph 842-10-30-5

b. Any other variable payments that depend on an index or a rate, initially measured using the index

or rate at the commencement date.

The guidance related to lease payments in ASC 842-10-30-5 is included here for reference. Refer to

Section 1.4 for a full discussion of what constitutes lease payments.

ASC 842-10-30-5

At the commencement date, the lease payments shall consist of the following payments relating to the

use of the underlying asset during the lease term:

a. Fixed payments, including in substance fixed payments, less any lease incentives paid or payable

to the lessee (see paragraphs 842-10-55-30 through 55-31).

b. Variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate (such as the Consumer Price Index or

a market interest rate), initially measured using the index or rate at the commencement date.

c. The exercise price of an option to purchase the underlying asset if the lessee is reasonably certain

to exercise that option (assessed considering the factors in paragraph 842-10-55-26).

d. Payments for penalties for terminating the lease if the lease term (as determined in accordance

with paragraph 842-10-30-1) reflects the lessee exercising an option to terminate the lease.

e. Fees paid by the lessee to the owners of a special-purpose entity for structuring the transaction.

However, such fees shall not be included in the fair value of the underlying asset for purposes of

applying paragraph 842-10-25-2(d).

f. For a lessee only, amounts probable of being owed by the lessee under residual value guarantees

(see paragraphs 842-10-55-34 through 55-36).

Payments associated with activities that do not transfer a good or service

As described in Section 3.1.3, payments associated with activities that do not transfer a good or service

to the lessee, such as a lessee’s reimbursement of the lessor’s property taxes or insurance premiums, do

not represent a separate component of the contract. According to Example 12 in ASC 842-10-55,

payments associated with such activities (payments that are not for goods or services in addition to the

right to use the underlying asset) are considered lease payments, which are included in the consideration

in the contract if they meet any of the criteria in ASC 842-10-15-35.

Therefore, a lessee should include fixed payments that reimburse a lessor for its property taxes and

insurance premiums in the consideration in the contract, and exclude variable payments to reimburse a

Components 106

lessor from the consideration in the contract. As a result, the consideration in the contract will differ for

gross and net leases.

In a typical gross lease, the lessee remits fixed payments to the lessor that represent consideration for

both the lease and nonlease components in the contract, such as the right to use an office suite and

common area maintenance. In addition, those payments are intended to reimburse the lessor for its

property taxes and insurance premiums associated with its ownership of the underlying asset. In a gross

lease, assuming an entity elects to separate the lease and nonlease components, the lessee allocates

the total fixed payments in the contract to the lease and nonlease components, meaning that a portion of

the payments to reimburse the lessor for property taxes and insurance premiums would be allocated to

each component.

In a typical net lease, the lessee remits fixed payments to the lessor that represent consideration for the

lease component in the contract. The lessee remits variable payments to the lessor as consideration for

nonlease components, such as common area maintenance, as well as reimbursement of the lessor’s

actual property taxes and insurance premiums incurred. Since a lessee would not include variable

payments that are not based on an index or rate in the consideration in the contract, its lease liability and

right-of-use asset would generally be smaller in a net lease compared to a gross lease. However, similar

to a gross lease, all of the payments, including variable payments for nonlease components and

reimbursements of the lessor’s property taxes and insurance premiums, would be allocated among the

lease and nonlease components based on their relative stand-alone prices.

3.2.2 Lessee initial allocation

A lessee initially allocates the consideration in the contract to the separate lease components and

nonlease components on the basis of their relative stand-alone prices.

Stand-alone price

To allocate the consideration in the contract to lease and nonlease components, a lessee must determine

a stand-alone price for each component. If a component is sold separately by the lessor or other

suppliers, then the lessee should use that observable price as the basis for that component’s stand-alone

price. However, oftentimes a nonlease component, such as maintenance, is not sold separately by the

lessor and information about stand-alone transactions involving other suppliers is not readily available. In

these cases, a lessee must estimate the component’s stand-alone price.

The guidance in paragraph BC156 of ASU 2016-02 explains the “stand-alone” price concept for lessees.

The Board decided not to reference the allocation guidance in ASC 606 for lessees as it did for lessors,

since a lessee is a customer rather than a supplier. However, like ASC 606, ASC 842 requires a lessee to

use a hierarchy for determining the stand-alone price if an observable stand-alone price is not available. If

there is no observable stand-alone price, then a lessee should estimate the stand-alone price, maximizing

the use of observable inputs. ASC 842 permits a lessee to use a residual estimation approach if there is

no observable price and an estimate cannot be made. However, in line with the guidance in ASC 606, the

use of a residual estimation approach is rarely appropriate, and should only be used in cases where the

stand-alone price is highly variable or uncertain.

ASU 2016-02 BC156

The allocation guidance for lessees in Topic 842 does not reference other Topics; the Board decided

that it will be less complex and more intuitive for lessees to include the allocation guidance within the

leases Topic. The Board also decided that having lessees apply the revenue recognition guidance in

Components 107

Topic 606 (as is the case for lessors) does not make conceptual sense because a lessee is the

customer in a lease rather than the supplier. However, the allocation guidance for lessees is similar to

that for lessors and also is broadly consistent with that in previous GAAP, although some additional

rigor has been added to the process for determining the standalone price of a lease or nonlease

component. That is, the Board decided that in determining the standalone price of lease and nonlease

components of the contract, a lessee is required to use observable standalone prices, if available,

before using an estimated standalone price. Furthermore, a lessee should maximize the use of

observable inputs and apply estimation methods consistently in similar circumstances when estimating

a standalone price. The Board decided that the ability to estimate standalone prices should include the

ability to use a residual approach to estimate the standalone price, subject to the requirement to

maximize the use of observable inputs in estimating the standalone price.

ASC 842-10-15-33

A lessee shall allocate (that is, unless the lessee makes the accounting policy election described in

paragraph 842-10-15-37) the consideration in the contract to the separate lease components

determined in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-15-28 through 15-31 and the nonlease components

as follows:

a. The lessee shall determine the relative standalone price of the separate lease components and the

nonlease components on the basis of their observable standalone prices. If observable standalone

prices are not readily available, the lessee shall estimate the standalone prices, maximizing the

use of observable information. A residual estimation approach may be appropriate if the

standalone price for a component is highly variable or uncertain.

b. The lessee shall allocate the consideration in the contract on a relative standalone price basis to

the separate lease components and the nonlease components of the contract.

Initial direct costs should be allocated to the separate lease components on the same basis as the

lease payments.

ASC 842-10-15-34

A price is observable if it is the price that either the lessor or similar suppliers sell similar lease or

nonlease components on a standalone basis.

3.2.3 Lessee subsequent measurement and allocation

A lessee revisits its measurement and allocation of the consideration in the contract when (1) it is

required to remeasure the lease liability or (2) a contract modification occurs that is not accounted for as a

separate contract under the modification guidance in ASC 842. For a discussion of lessee modifications

and remeasurement events, please refer to Sections 5.7 and 5.8.

Components 108

ASC 842-10-15-36

A lessee shall remeasure and reallocate the consideration in the contract upon either of the following:

a. A remeasurement of the lease liability (for example, a remeasurement resulting from a change in

the lease term or a change in the assessment of whether a lessee is or is not reasonably certain to

exercise an option to purchase the underlying asset) (see paragraph 842-20-35-4)

b. The effective date of a contract modification that is not accounted for as a separate contract (see

paragraph 842-10-25-8).

3.3 Lessor measurement, allocation, and subsequent measurement of

consideration

Similar to lessees, lessors must allocate the consideration in the contract among lease and nonlease

components. For lessors, this allocation procedure is similar to the approach for allocating the transaction

price to performance obligations under ASC 606.

Lessors recognize consideration allocated to lease components as income based on the guidance in ASC

842, and consideration allocated to nonlease components as income based on the guidance in ASC 606.

The new guidance on measuring and allocating the consideration in the contract differs for lessees and

lessors. This section addresses only lessor measurement and allocation.

3.3.1 Lessor measurement

The guidance in ASC 842 calls for lessors to measure the consideration in a contract similarly to lessees,

except for certain variable payments. See Section 3.2.1 for a discussion regarding the lessee’s

measurement of the consideration in the contract. From the lessor’s perspective, the consideration in the

contract includes variable payments that are not based on an index or a rate, provided that the payments

(1) would be part of the transaction price under ASC 606, and (2) either relate specifically to the lessor’s

efforts to transfer, or an outcome from transferring, one or more nonlease goods or services to the lessee.

Therefore, it is important for lessors to examine the nature of variable payments required under a contract

to determine whether they are related specifically to a nonlease component.

Unless a lessor has elected to combine lease and nonlease components pursuant to the lessor practical

expedient described in Section 3.1.6, it must allocate variable payments that relate, at least in part, to a

lease component to both lease and nonlease components when the changes in facts and circumstances

that trigger the variable payments occur. A lessor should recognize the portion of the payment allocated

to the lease component under ASC 842, and the portion allocated to the nonlease component under other

applicable accounting guidance, such as ASC 606.

A lessor should differentiate between lessor costs that are paid by the lessee directly to a third party and

lessor costs that are reimbursed by the lessee. A lessor should exclude lessor costs paid by the lessee

directly to a third party from variable payments and therefore from lease revenue. A lessor should also

account for reimbursements of lessor costs received from the lessee as variable payments if they are

excluded from the consideration in the contract.

As described in Section 3.1.4, payments made by a lessee on behalf of a lessor, or payments that

reimburse a lessor for certain costs, do not represent separate components of a contract if either (a) the

lessor would incur the cost regardless of whether the asset is leased and who the lessee is, or (b) the

Components 109

lessor is the primary beneficiary of the payment. In some leasing arrangements, the lessor collects tax

payments from the lessee and remits those amounts to the taxing authority on the lessee’s behalf, or the

lessee remits tax payments associated with the lease directly to the taxing authority. In these situations, a

lessor must consider whether the tax payments represent amounts that the lessor would owe regardless

of whether the leasing arrangement exists. In other words, the lessor should consider whether it is the

primary obligor with respect to such tax payments. If the lessor determines itself to be the primary obligor

for the tax payments, then it should separately present revenue and expense (that is, “gross up” its

statement of comprehensive income) for the lessee’s reimbursement of the lessor’s costs or for the

lessee’s direct payment to the taxing authority on the lessor’s behalf. Otherwise, the lessor should not

recognize revenue or expense associated with such lessee payments.

However, a lessor may make an accounting policy election to exclude from its statement of

comprehensive income taxes imposed on leasing revenue transactions by a government agency that are

collected by the lessor from the lessee. Making such an election allows a lessor to forgo evaluating

whether it is the primary obligor with respect to such taxes. Taxes within the scope of this election include

sales tax, use tax, value-added tax, and some excise taxes. Taxes outside the scope of this election are

taxes assessed on a lessor’s total gross receipts, as well as taxes assessed on the lessor as the owner of

the underlying asset, such as property taxes.

A lessor electing this accounting policy should exclude all taxes collected from the lessee that fall within

the scope of this election from both consideration in the contract and variable payments that are not

included in consideration in the contract. A lessor must disclose its accounting policy election, as

discussed in Section 10.3.2.

ASC 842-10-15-39

The consideration in the contract for a lessor includes all of the amounts described in paragraph 842-

10-15-35 and any other variable payment amounts that would be included in the transaction price in

accordance with the guidance on variable consideration in Topic 606 on revenue from contracts with

customers that specifically relates to either of the following:

a. The lessor’s efforts to transfer one or more goods or services that are not leases

b. An outcome from transferring one or more goods or services that are not leases.

Any variable payment amounts accounted for as consideration in the contract shall be allocated

entirely to the nonlease component(s) to which the variable payment specifically relates if doing

so would be consistent with the transaction price allocation objective in paragraph 606-10-32-28.

ASC 842-10-15-39A

A lessor may make an accounting policy election to exclude from the consideration in the contract and

from variable payments not included in the consideration in the contract all taxes assessed by a

governmental authority that are both imposed on and concurrent with a specific lease revenue-

producing transaction and collected by the lessor from a lessee (for example, sales, use, value added,

and some excise taxes). Taxes assessed on a lessor’s total gross receipts or on the lessor as owner of

the underlying asset shall be excluded from the scope of this election. A lessor that makes this election

shall exclude from the consideration in the contract and from variable payments not included in the

consideration in the contract all taxes within the scope of the election and shall comply with the

disclosure requirements in paragraph 842-30-50-14.

Components 110

ASC 842-10-15-40

If the terms of a variable payment amount other than those in paragraph 842-10-15-35 relate to a lease

component, even partially, the lessor shall not recognize those payments before the changes in facts

and circumstances on which the variable payment is based occur (for example, when the lessee’s

sales on which the amount of the variable payment depends occur). When the changes in facts and

circumstances on which the variable payment is based occur, the lessor shall allocate those payments

to the lease and nonlease components of the contract. The allocation shall be on the same basis as

the initial allocation of the consideration in the contract or the most recent modification not accounted

for as a separate contract unless the variable payment meets the criteria in paragraph 606-10-32-40 to

be allocated only to the lease component(s). Variable payment amounts allocated to the lease

component(s) shall be recognized as income in profit or loss in accordance with this Topic, while

variable payment amounts allocated to nonlease component(s) shall be recognized in accordance with

other Topics (for example, Topic 606 on revenue from contracts with customers).

ASC 842-10-15-40A

The guidance in paragraph 842-10-15-40 notwithstanding, a lessor shall exclude from variable

payments lessor costs paid by a lessee directly to a third party. However, costs excluded from the

consideration in the contract that are paid by a lessor directly to a third party and are reimbursed by a

lessee are considered lessor costs that shall be accounted for by the lessor as variable payments (this

requirement does not preclude a lessor from making the accounting policy election in paragraph 842-

10-15-39A).

Variable payments for lessors and lessees

Lessor leases space in its office building to Lessee. Under the lease, Lessor will also provide certain

common area maintenance services, and Lessee will pay a fixed percentage of the actual maintenance

costs that Lessor incurs to provide these services to all the tenants in the building. Lessor’s cost of

providing the service is variable; for example, one of the services provided is snow removal, which

varies based on the number of snow events during the year.

Lessor and Lessee treat these variable payments differently. Lessor is required to estimate the total

amount of the payments for common area maintenance services and include them in the total

consideration for the lease, assuming that they relate solely to providing the common area maintenance

service component of the contract, which is a nonlease component. Lessee, on the other hand, does

not reflect these payments in the consideration in the contract, because the variability is not based on a

rate or an index.

Example 14 in ASC 842-10-55 illustrates the distinction between variable payments that are specifically

related to a nonlease component and those that are not.

Components 111

Example 14—Determining the Consideration in the Contract—Variable Payments

Case A—Variable Payments That Relate to the Lease Component and the Nonlease Component

ASC 842-10-55-150

Lessee and Lessor enter into a three-year lease of equipment that includes maintenance services on

the equipment throughout the three-year lease term. Lessee will pay Lessor $100,000 per year plus an

additional $7,000 each year that the equipment is operating a minimum number of hours at a specified

level of productivity (that is, the equipment is not malfunctioning or inoperable). The potential $7,000

payment each year is variable because the payment depends on the equipment operating a minimum

number of hours at a specified level of productivity. The lease is an operating lease.

ASC 842-10-55-151

In accordance with paragraph 842-10-15-35, variable payments other than those that depend on an

index or a rate are not accounted for as consideration in the contract by Lessee. Therefore, the

consideration in the contract to be allocated by Lessee to the equipment lease and the maintenance

services at lease commencement includes only the fixed payments of $100,000 each year (or

$300,000 in total). Lessee allocates the consideration in the contract to the equipment lease and the

maintenance services on the basis of the standalone prices of each, which, for purposes of this

example, are $285,000 and $45,000, respectively.

Standalone

Price

Relative

Standalone

Price

Lease

$ 285,000

$ 259,091

Maintenance

45,000

40,909

$ 330,000

$ 300,000

Each $100,000 annual fixed payment and each variable payment are allocated to the equipment lease

and the maintenance services on the same basis as the initial allocation of the consideration in the

contract (that is, 86.4 percent to the equipment lease and 13.6 percent to the maintenance services).

Therefore, annual lease expense, excluding variable expense, is $86,364. Lessee recognizes the

expense related to the variable payments in accordance with paragraphs 842-20-25-6 and 842-20-55-1

through 55-2.

ASC 842-10-55-152

In accordance with paragraphs 842-10-15-39 through 15-40, Lessor also concludes that the potential

variable payments should not be accounted for as consideration in the contract. That is because the

potential variable payment each year is not solely related to performance of the nonlease maintenance

services; the quality and condition of the underlying asset also substantively affect whether Lessor will

earn those amounts. Therefore, Lessor’s allocation of the consideration in the contract ($300,000) in

this Example is the same as Lessee. Lessor will allocate, in accordance with paragraph 842-10-15-40,

the variable payments between the lease and nonlease maintenance services (on the same basis as

the initial allocation of the consideration in the contract), when and if the productivity targets are met.

Lessor will recognize the portion allocated to the lease at that time and will recognize the portion

Components 112

allocated to the nonlease maintenance services in accordance with the guidance on satisfaction of

performance obligations in Topic 606 on revenue from contracts with customers.

Case B—Variable Payments That Relate Specifically to a Nonlease Component

ASC 842-10-55-153

Assume the same facts and circumstances as in Case A (paragraphs 842-10-55-150 through 55-152),

except in this scenario the maintenance services are highly specialized and no entity would expect the

equipment to meet the performance metrics without the specialized maintenance services.

ASC 842-10-55-154

Lessee would account for the potential variable payments consistent with Case A. The rationale for this

accounting also is consistent with that in Case A.

ASC 842-10-55-155

In contrast to Case A, Lessor concludes that the variable payments relate specifically to an outcome

from Lessor’s performance of its maintenance services. Therefore, Lessor evaluates the variable

payments in accordance with the variable consideration guidance in paragraphs 606-10-32-5 through

32-13. If Lessor estimates, using the most likely amount method, that it will be entitled to receive the

$21,000 in variable payments and that it is probable that including that amount in the transaction price

for the maintenance services would not result in a significant revenue reversal when the uncertainty of

the performance bonus is resolved, the $21,000 would be included in the consideration in the contract.

Because allocating the $21,000 entirely to the maintenance services would not result in an allocation

that is consistent with the allocation objective in paragraph 606-10-32-28 (that is, it would result in

allocating $61,909 to the maintenance services and the remainder to the equipment lease, which would

not reasonably depict the consideration to which Lessor expects to be entitled for each component),

the entire consideration in the contract of $321,000 is allocated on a relative standalone price basis as

follows.

Standalone

Price

Relative

Standalone

Price

Lease

$ 285,000

$ 277,227

Maintenance

45,000

43,773

$ 330,000

$ 321,000

ASC 842-10-55-156

The $277,227 allocated to the equipment lease is the lease payment in accounting for the lease in

accordance with Subtopic 842-30. Lessor will recognize the consideration in the contract allocated to

the maintenance services in accordance with the guidance on the satisfaction of performance

obligations in paragraphs 606-10-25-23 through 25-37. If the consideration in the contract changes (for

example, because Lessor no longer estimates that it will receive the full $21,000 in potential variable

payments), Lessor will allocate the change in the transaction price on the same basis as was initially

done.

Components 113

Case C—Allocating Variable Payments Entirely to a Nonlease Component

ASC 842-10-55-157

Assume the same facts and circumstances as in Case B (paragraphs 842-10-55-153 through 55-156),

except that in this scenario all of the following apply:

a. The potential variable payments are $14,000 per year ($42,000 in total), and the annual fixed

payments are $93,000 per year ($279,000 in total).

b. While Lessor’s estimate of the variable payments to which it will be entitled is $42,000, Lessor

concludes that it is not probable that including the full $42,000 in potential variable payments in the

consideration in the contract will not result in a significant revenue reversal (that is, the entity

applies the constraint on variable consideration in paragraph 606-10-32-11). Lessor concludes that

only $28,000 is probable of not resulting in a significant revenue reversal. Therefore, the

consideration in the contract is initially $307,000 ($279,000 + $28,000).

ASC 842-10-55-158

In contrast to Case B, Lessor concludes that allocating the variable payments entirely to the

maintenance services and the fixed payments entirely to the equipment lease is consistent with the

allocation objective in paragraph 606-10-32-28. This is because $42,000 (Lessor considers its estimate

of the variable payments to which it expects to be entitled exclusive of the constraint on variable

consideration in Topic 606 on revenue recognition) and $279,000 approximate the standalone price of

the maintenance services ($45,000) and the equipment lease ($285,000), respectively. Because the

variable payments are allocated entirely to the maintenance services, if the consideration in the

contract changes (for example, because Lessor concludes it is now probable that it will earn the full

$42,000 in variable payments), that change is allocated entirely to the maintenance services

component in the contract.

Based on Example 14, it is our view that a lessor should include variable payments in the consideration in

the contract if the lessor providing the nonlease component to the lessee is the only substantive

contingency that the variable payments are based on.

In Example 14, Case A, the variable payments are excluded from the lessor’s consideration in the

contract because whether the equipment operates for a minimum number of hours at a specified level of

productivity does not solely depend on the lessor providing maintenance services; reaching the specified

performance thresholds also substantively depends on the quality and condition of the underlying asset.

Conversely, in Example 14, Case B, the lessor concludes that the maintenance services are so

specialized that meeting the performance thresholds depends solely on the lessor providing those

services.

Arguably, the variable payments in Case B also depend on the quality and condition of the underlying

asset, but we believe that the Board’s use of the term “substantively” in describing the conclusion in

Case A is significant. An outcome that triggers a variable payment might be affected by many variables,

but the key is which variables substantively affect the outcome. In Case A, both the performance of the

maintenance services and the quality and condition of the asset are deemed to substantively affect

whether the equipment meets the specified performance thresholds. In Case B, the maintenance services

are so specialized that their performance has a relatively greater impact on whether the equipment meets

the specified performance thresholds than the services in Case A. Likewise, in Case B, the quality and

Components 114

condition of the underlying asset has relatively little to do with whether the performance thresholds are

met. Therefore, in Case B, the only variable that substantively affects whether the thresholds are met is

the performance of the maintenance services.

3.3.2 Lessor initial allocation

A lessor must allocate the consideration in the contract to the lease and nonlease components in

accordance with the guidance in ASC 606-10-32-28 through 32-41, which requires allocation on a relative

stand-alone selling price basis.

ASC 842-10-15-38

A lessor shall allocate (unless the lessor makes the accounting policy election in accordance with

paragraph 842-10-15-42A) the consideration in the contract to the separate lease components and

the nonlease components using the requirements in paragraphs 606-10-32-28 through 32-41. A

lessor also shall allocate (unless the lessor makes the accounting policy election in accordance with

paragraph 842-10-15-42A) any capitalized costs (for example, initial direct costs or contract costs

capitalized in accordance with Subtopic 340-40 on other assets and deferred costs for contracts with

customers) to the separate lease components or nonlease components to which those costs relate.

Stand-alone selling price for a lessor

A lessor determines the stand-alone selling price of the lease and nonlease components in a contract at

contract inception.

Standalone selling price: The price at which an entity would sell a promised good or service separately

to a customer.

ASC 606-10-32-31 through 32-35 describes how an entity should determine the stand-alone selling price

for a promised good or service in a contract. The best evidence of the stand-alone selling price is the

observable price charged by the entity to similar customers in similar circumstances. If an observable

price is not available, then a lessor must estimate the stand-alone selling price, maximizing its use of

observable inputs.

ASC 606-10-32-32

The standalone selling price is the price at which an entity would sell a promised good or service

separately to a customer. The best evidence of a standalone selling price is the observable price of a

good or service when the entity sells that good or service separately in similar circumstances and to

similar customers. A contractually stated price or a list price for a good or service may be (but shall not

be presumed to be) the standalone selling price of that good or service.

Components 115

If the stand-alone selling price is not observable because, for example, the entity does not sell the good

or service separately, an entity should estimate the stand-alone selling price using all information that is

reasonably available to the entity, maximizing the use of observable inputs.

ASC 606-10-32-33

If a standalone selling price is not directly observable, an entity shall estimate the standalone selling

price at an amount that would result in the allocation of the transaction price meeting the allocation

objective in paragraph 606-10-32-28. When estimating a standalone selling price, an entity shall

consider all information (including market conditions, entity-specific factors, and information about the

customer or class of customer) that is reasonably available to the entity. In doing so, an entity shall

maximize the use of observable inputs and apply estimation methods consistently in similar

circumstances.

As noted in paragraph BC269 of ASU 2014-09, information that is “reasonably available” to the entity may

include, but is not limited to, the following items:

 Data points such as a stand-alone selling price of the good or service, costs incurred to manufacture

or provide the good or service, related profit margins, published price listings, third-party or industry

pricing, and the pricing of other goods or services in the same contract

 Information about market conditions such as supply and demand for the good or service in the

market, competition, restrictions, and trends

 Entity-specific factors such as business pricing strategy and practices

 Information about the customer or class of customers such as type of customer, geographical region,

and distribution channel

Evaluating the evidence related to estimating a stand-alone selling price may require significant judgment.

A lessor should establish policies and procedures for estimating stand-alone selling prices and apply

those policies and procedures consistently to similar components. As a best practice, an entity should

document its evaluation of the market conditions and entity-specific factors considered in estimating each

stand-alone selling price, including factors that it considers to be irrelevant and the reasons why.

According to paragraph BC268 of ASU 2014-09, the Board decided not to preclude or prescribe any

particular method for estimating the stand-alone selling price, as long as the method results in an

estimate that provides a faithful representation of the price that the entity would use to separately sell the

good or service to a customer. While ASC 606 does not prescribe an estimation method, it does indicate

that the following methods are acceptable for estimating the stand-alone selling price when the selling

price is not directly observable:

 Adjusted market assessment approach

 Expected cost-plus-a-margin approach

 Residual approach

Components 116

ASC 606-10-32-34

Suitable methods for estimating the standalone selling price of a good or service include, but are not

limited to, the following:

a. Adjusted market assessment approach—An entity could evaluate the market in which it sells goods

or services and estimate the price that a customer in that market would be willing to pay for those

goods or services. That approach also might include referring to prices from the entity’s

competitors for similar goods or services and adjusting those prices as necessary to reflect the

entity’s costs and margins.

b. Expected cost plus a margin approach—An entity could forecast its expected costs of satisfying a

performance obligation and then add an appropriate margin for that good or service.

c. Residual approach—An entity may estimate the standalone selling price by reference to the total

transaction price less the sum of the observable standalone selling prices of other goods or

services promised in the contract. However, an entity may use a residual approach to estimate, in

accordance with paragraph 606-10-32-33, the standalone selling price of a good or service only if

one of the following criteria is met:

1. The entity sells the same good or service to different customers (at or near the same time) for

a broad range of amounts (that is, the selling price is highly variable because a representative

standalone selling price is not discernible from past transactions or other observable evidence).

2. The entity has not yet established a price for that good or service, and the good or service has

not previously been sold on a standalone basis (that is, the selling price is uncertain).

Adjusted market assessment approach

Under the adjusted market assessment approach, an entity evaluates the market in which it sells the

goods or services and estimates the price that customers in that market would pay for those goods or

services when sold separately. An entity could also look to competitor pricing information for similar goods

or services and adjust that information to reflect its own costs and margins. In other words, if an entity’s

product differs from the competitor’s product, those differences might indicate that the entity would not

sell its product for the same price as its competitor.

Expected cost-plus-a-margin approach

Under the expected cost-plus-a-margin approach, an entity forecasts its expected costs to provide the

good or service and adds an appropriate margin. When determining which costs to include in the selling

price analysis, an entity should develop and consistently apply a methodology that considers direct and

indirect costs, as well as other relevant costs considered in its normal pricing practices, such as research

and development costs. Determining the margin to use when applying a cost-plus-a-margin approach

requires significant judgment, particularly when the entity is not planning to separately sell a product or

service. Furthermore, using an expected cost-plus-a-margin approach may not be appropriate in many

circumstances, such as when direct fulfillment costs are not easily identifiable or when costs are not a

significant input in setting the price for the goods or services.

Components 117

Residual approach

Under the residual approach, an entity estimates the stand-alone selling price of a good or service by

subtracting the sum of the observable stand-alone selling prices for other goods and services promised

under the contract from the total consideration in the contract. This method is permitted only if either of

the following conditions is met:

 The selling price of the good or service is highly variable: The entity sells the same good or service to

different customers, at or near the same time, for a broad range of amounts so that a representative

stand-alone price is not discernible.

 The selling price of the good or service is uncertain: The entity has not yet established a price for the

good or service and the good or service has not been sold on a stand-alone basis.

At the crossroads: Using the residual approach

In paragraph BC273 of ASU 2014-09, the Board emphasizes that the “residual approach” under

ASC 606 differs from the “residual method” used in legacy revenue GAAP.

In ASC 606, the residual approach is used to determine the stand-alone selling price of a distinct good

or service. As a result, the distinct good or service cannot have a stand-alone selling price of zero

because, by definition, a good or service that is distinct has value on a stand-alone basis.

In contrast, a good or service may have been assigned a value of zero under legacy GAAP, because

the residual method was an allocation method. The Board noted in paragraph BC273 of ASU 2014-09

that if no, or very little, consideration is allocated to a good or service or to a bundle of goods or

services as a result of applying the residual approach, the entity should consider whether the estimate

is appropriate.

The table in Figure 3.2 presents examples of when it may or may not be appropriate to apply each of

these methods to estimate the stand-alone selling price of a component.

Figure 3.2: When to apply select methods to estimate stand-alone selling price

Method

Description

May be appropriate

May not be appropriate

Adjusted market

assessment approach

An entity looks to the

relevant market to

determine what a

customer would pay

for the good or service.

The good or service is not

new to the market and

sufficient data supports

the market demand.

The entity is selling a

new product or service.

Components 118

Expected cost-plus-a-

margin approach

An entity looks to

entity-specific factors,

such as the cost basis

of the good or service.

The entity has sufficient

data supporting the direct

costs of providing the

good or service.

The entity lacks sufficient

data supporting the direct

costs of providing the

good or service.

Residual approach

An entity subtracts the

sum of the observable

stand-alone selling

prices for other goods

or services promised

under the contract

from the total

consideration in the

contract, to arrive at an

estimated selling price

for the remaining

component(s).

In a contract with both

(1) one or more goods or

services with highly

variable or uncertain

stand-alone selling prices,

and (2) the right to use a

piece of equipment, at

least one of the nonlease

components has an

observable stand-alone

selling price.

The entity either (1) has

information that can be

used for the adjusted

market assessment or

expected cost-plus-a-

margin approach, or

(2) sells a component on

a stand-alone basis but

does not believe the

price is representative of

the stand-alone selling

price.

Using a combination of approaches

A lessor may need to use a combination of approaches to estimate the stand-alone selling prices when

two or more of the components in the contract have highly variable or uncertain stand-alone selling

prices.

ASC 606-10-32-35

A combination of methods may need to be used to estimate the standalone selling prices of the goods

or services promised in the contract if two or more of those goods or services have highly variable or

uncertain standalone selling prices. For example, an entity may use a residual approach to estimate

the aggregate standalone selling price for those promised goods or services with highly variable or

uncertain standalone selling prices and then use another method to estimate the standalone selling

prices of the individual goods or services relative to that estimated aggregate standalone selling price

determined by the residual approach. When an entity uses a combination of methods to estimate the

standalone selling price of each promised good or service in the contract, the entity shall evaluate

whether allocating the transaction price at those estimated standalone selling prices would be

consistent with the allocation objective in paragraph 606-10-32-28 and the guidance on estimating

standalone selling prices in paragraph 606-10-32-33.

Variable payments and stand-alone selling price

Exempted from the relative stand-alone selling price methodology are certain variable payments that

specifically relate to either the lessor’s efforts to transfer, or an outcome from transferring, one or more

goods or services that are nonlease components of a contract. A lessor must allocate these payments

entirely to the related nonlease component(s) if doing so is consistent with the allocation objective of

ASC 606-10-32-28, which is to allocate consideration in a manner that depicts the amount of

Components 119

consideration the lessor expects to be entitled to in exchange for transferring the nonlease component(s)

to the lessee. If these payments relate partially to a lease component, then the lessor must allocate them

among the lease and nonlease components based on relative standalone selling prices and recognize the

portion assigned to the lease component in profit or loss in the period in which the changes in facts and

circumstances on which the variable payment is based occur.

As illustrated in Example 14 in ASC 842-10-55 (see Section 3.3.1), a lessor is permitted to assess

whether allocating variable payments solely to a nonlease component is consistent with the allocation

objective in ASC 606 by comparing (1) the amount of consideration that would be allocated to the

nonlease component if the variable payments were allocated solely to that component to (2) the

component’s stand-alone selling price. The larger the difference between these two amounts, the less

likely it is that allocating the variable payments solely to the nonlease component would be consistent

with the allocation objective in ASC 606. Although the guidance does not provide quantitative thresholds

for making this determination, Case B in Example 14 illustrates a scenario where a difference between

these amounts of approximately 38 percent of the stand-alone price is not consistent with the allocation

objective in ASC 606. In contrast, Case C in Example 14 illustrates a scenario where a difference of

approximately 7 percent of the stand-alone price is consistent with the allocation objective of ASC 606.

Figure 3.3: Lessor allocation of variable payments

The following flow chart illustrates a lessor’s decision process for allocating variable payments in a

contract.

Components 120

Variable consideration and the constraint

The concept of the constraint on variable consideration is described in ASC 606. If an amount of

consideration in a customer contract is variable, an entity evaluates whether to constrain the amount of

estimated variable consideration. The objective of the constraint is for an entity to recognize revenue only

to the extent it is probable that a significant reversal in cumulative revenue recognized for the contract will

not occur when the uncertainty is resolved. In other words, an entity includes some or all of its estimate of

variable consideration in the transaction price to the extent that it is probable that a significant revenue

reversal will not occur when the uncertainty leading to the variability is resolved. For further discussion of

the concept of the constraint, see Grant Thornton’s Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Navigating

the guidance in ASC 606 and ASC 340-40, (Grant Thornton’s Revenue Guide) Section 5.1.1.

ASC 606-10-32-11

An entity shall include in the transaction price some or all of an amount of variable consideration

estimated in accordance with paragraph 606-10-32-8 only to the extent that it is probable that a

significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur when the uncertainty

associated with the variable consideration is subsequently resolved.

Lessor allocation of consideration to ‘common area maintenance’

Real estate lessors often provide common area maintenance (CAM) services to their tenants. Examples

of CAM services include removing snow from a parking lot and walkways, cleaning a building lobby, and

maintaining lawn and garden areas around a building.

The CAM component of a real estate lease is often subject to negotiation between the lessor and lessee.

In its simplest form, a lessee in a multi-tenant real estate development pays a proportionate amount of

costs incurred by the lessor for CAM services based on the relative square footage leased. For example,

a lessee leasing 10 percent of the available square footage in an office building would pay 10 percent of

the cost of the CAM services provided by the lessor. However, lessees and lessors often negotiate more

complex formulas for calculating a tenant’s share of CAM costs, and some contracts specify a fixed

charge for CAM services rather than assigning a proportionate amount of costs incurred to each tenant.

Grant Thornton insights: CAM services

CAM services are typically considered a nonlease component of a contract, so a lessor must allocate

consideration to the CAM component assuming the lessor has not elected, or does not qualify for, the

combination practical expedient. In many cases, payments for CAM are variable based on the actual

costs incurred by the lessor to provide the services, and relate specifically to the lessor’s efforts to

transfer those services. Therefore, a lessor may be required to (1) include the estimated CAM

payments in the consideration in the contract and (2) allocate these payments solely to the nonlease

CAM component.

We believe that real estate lessors must apply a consistent methodology to estimate the stand-alone

selling price of each lease and nonlease component in a contract to properly apply the allocation

guidance in ASC 842-10-15-38 through 15-39.

Components 121

3.3.3 Lessor subsequent measurement and allocation

A lessor revisits the measurement and allocation of the remaining consideration in the contract if there is

either a modification to the lease that is not accounted for as a separate contract or a change in the

consideration in the contract. See Section 6.9 for a discussion of lease modifications for lessors.

ASC 842-10-15-41

A lessor shall remeasure and reallocate the remaining consideration in the contract when there is a

contract modification that is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph

842-10-25-8.

If there is a change in the consideration in the contract other than a change resulting from a modification,

the lessor should allocate the change based on the guidance in ASC 606 related to allocating changes in

the transaction price.

ASC 842-10-15-42

If the consideration in the contract changes, a lessor shall allocate those changes in accordance with

the requirements in paragraphs 606-10-32-42 through 32-45.

The guidance in ASC 606 states that entities should allocate changes in the transaction price to the

performance obligations in the contract on the same basis used at contract inception. The guidance

specifically notes that entities should not reallocate the transaction price to reflect changes in the stand-

alone selling price after contract inception. Applying this guidance to leases, a lessor would not

recalculate its allocation percentages for changes in the stand-alone selling prices after the lease

inception date, and would allocate those changes based on its initial allocation percentages.

For example, assume that a lessor originally calculates a transaction price based on estimated variable

amounts, but those estimates later change, and no other changes in the contract trigger a

remeasurement. In this case, the new remaining consideration is simply allocated to the lease

components based on the original allocation percentages. The lease has three components allocated 20

percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent of the total original consideration of $100,000. If total consideration

later changes to $110,000, that change should be allocated as shown in the table below.

Component

Allocation

percentage

Original

allocation

Allocation

after change

Component 1

20%

$ 20,000

$ 22,000

Component 2

30%

$ 30,000

$ 33,000

Components 122

Component 3

50%

$ 50,000

$ 55,000

Total

100%

$100,000

$110,000

ASC 606-10-32-42

After contract inception, the transaction price can change for various reasons, including the resolution

of uncertain events or other changes in circumstances that change the amount of consideration to

which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for the promised goods or services.

ASC 606-10-32-43

An entity shall allocate to the performance obligations in the contract any subsequent changes in the

transaction price on the same basis as at contract inception. Consequently, an entity shall not

reallocate the transaction price to reflect changes in standalone selling prices after contract inception.

Amounts allocated to a satisfied performance obligation shall be recognized as revenue, or as a

reduction of revenue, in the period in which the transaction price changes.

ASC 606-10-32-44

An entity shall allocate a change in the transaction price entirely to one or more, but not all,

performance obligations or distinct goods or services promised in a series that forms part of a single

performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 606-10-25-14(b) only if the criteria in paragraph

606-10-32-40 on allocating variable consideration are met.

ASC 606-10-32-45

An entity shall account for a change in the transaction price that arises as a result of a contract

modification in accordance with paragraphs 606-10-25-10 through 25-13. However, for a change in the

transaction price that occurs after a contract modification, an entity shall apply paragraphs 606-10-32-

42 through 32-44 to allocate the change in the transaction price in whichever of the following ways is

applicable:

a. An entity shall allocate the change in the transaction price to the performance obligations identified

in the contract before the modification if, and to the extent that, the change in the transaction price

is attributable to an amount of variable consideration promised before the modification and the

modification is accounted for in accordance with paragraph 606-10-25-13(a).

b. In all other cases in which the modification was not accounted for as a separate contract in

accordance with paragraph 606-10-25-12, an entity shall allocate the change in the transaction

price to the performance obligations in the modified contract (that is, the performance obligations

that were unsatisfied or partially unsatisfied immediately after the modification).

Components 123

4. Lease classification

ASC 842 requires both lessors and lessees to determine the classification of a lease component at the

commencement date of the lease. The “commencement date” is the date when the lessor makes the

underlying asset available for the lessee’s use (see Section 1.1 for further discussion of the

commencement date). If a contract contains multiple lease components, an entity must separately

determine how to classify each individual lease component.

Under ASC 842, lessees classify a lease as either an “operating” or a “finance” lease, while lessors

classify a lease as a “sales-type,” a “direct financing,” or an “operating” lease. Reassessment of lease

classification is required only if either

 For lessors and lessees: The lease is modified and the modification is not accounted for as a

separate contract.

 For lessees only: There is a change in either the lease term or the lessee’s assessment about

whether it is reasonably certain to exercise a purchase option.

ASC 842-10-25-1

An entity shall classify each separate lease component at the commencement date. An entity shall not

reassess the lease classification after the commencement date unless the contract is modified and the

modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-8. In

addition, a lessee also shall reassess the lease classification after the commencement date if there is

a change in the lease term or the assessment of whether the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise

an option to purchase the underlying asset. When an entity (that is, a lessee or lessor) is required to

reassess lease classification, the entity shall reassess classification of the lease on the basis of the

facts and circumstances (and the modified terms and conditions, if applicable) as of the date the

reassessment is required (for example, on the basis of the fair value and the remaining economic life of

the underlying asset as of the date there is a change in the lease term or in the assessment of a lessee

option to purchase the underlying asset, or as of the effective date of a modification not accounted for

as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-8).

At the crossroads: Timing of classification assessment

Legacy GAAP requires an entity to classify leases on the inception date of the lease. “Lease inception”

is defined under legacy GAAP as the date of the lease agreement or commitment, meaning the date

when a written agreement is signed by both parties, with all principal provisions negotiated. All inputs to

the lease classification analysis, such as the fair value of the underlying asset, are measured at that

date.

Components 124

Under ASC 842, an entity assesses lease classification on the commencement date of the lease. The

“commencement date” is the date when the lessor makes the underlying asset available for the lessee

to use. Under ASC 842, all inputs to the lease classification analysis are measured at this date.

In many cases, the lease inception and commencement dates coincide, so that changing the

classification assessment date from the inception to commencement date has no impact on the

outcome upon transitioning to ASC 842. However, if the inception date precedes the commencement

date, such as when an asset must be constructed before it is made available to the lessee, classifying

a component at the commencement date could have a different result than if the assessment were

performed at the inception date.

Figure 4.1: Lease classification

This figure illustrates the five classification criteria for a finance (lessee) or sales-type (lessor) lease.

Components 125

4.1 Classification criteria – lessee and lessor

At the commencement date, an entity must consider five criteria to determine how to classify a lease.

These criteria are designed to identify whether a lease is economically similar to a purchase or sale of

the underlying asset. A lease that is economically similar to a sale or purchase of the underlying asset

transfers to the lessee the right to direct the use of, and to obtain substantially all of the remaining

benefits from, the asset. In other words, the lessee effectively controls the underlying asset. A lessor is

deemed to have transferred control of the underlying asset to the lessee if the lease meets any one of the

following criteria:

1. Transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee.

2. Provides the lessee with an option to purchase the underlying asset that is “reasonably certain” to be

exercised.

3. Covers a “major part” of the underlying asset’s remaining economic life.

4. Transfers consideration to the lessor representing “substantially all” of the underlying asset’s fair

value, which is assessed based on the present value of the lease payments and the lessee’s

guarantee of the underlying asset’s residual value, if any.

5. Conveys the right to use an underlying asset so specialized that it has no alternative use to the lessor

following the lease term.

A lease meeting any one of these criteria is classified as a finance lease by the lessee and as a sales-

type lease by the lessor. If a lease meets none of these criteria, then it is classified as an operating lease

by the lessee and as either a direct financing or an operating lease by the lessor, subject to additional

analysis.

Each of these criteria is examined in further detail in the following sections.

ASC 842-10-25-2

A lessee shall classify a lease as a finance lease and a lessor shall classify a lease as a sales-type

lease when the lease meets any of the following criteria at lease commencement:

a. The lease transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee by the end of the lease term.

b. The lease grants the lessee an option to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is

reasonably certain to exercise.

c. The lease term is for the major part of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset.

However, if the commencement date falls at or near the end of the economic life of the underlying

asset, this criterion shall not be used for purposes of classifying the lease.

d. The present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual value guaranteed by the

lessee that is not already reflected in the lease payments in accordance with paragraph 842-10-30-

5(f) equals or exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset.

e. The underlying asset is of such a specialized nature that it is expected to have no alternative use to

the lessor at the end of the lease term.

Components 126

At the crossroads

Lease classification criteria

Many of the lease classification criteria in ASC 842 appear similar to the lease classification criteria

under legacy GAAP, but there are two major changes:

1. For the criteria that require comparing (1) the lease term to the remaining economic life of the

asset and (2) the present value of lease payments to the asset’s fair value, numerical thresholds

have been removed.

2. A new criterion has been added relating to whether the underlying asset has an alternative use to

the lessor at the end of the lease term.

Although the legacy numerical thresholds have been removed from the lease classification criteria, the

guidance in ASC 842 clearly states that continuing to use the legacy numerical thresholds is a

reasonable approach to applying the new lease classification criteria. The similarities between the new

and legacy classification criteria allow many entities to continue using existing processes, perhaps with

slight modifications, when applying the new classification guidance.

Classification of leases involving land

Under legacy GAAP, classification of a lease involving only land is based solely on the transfer-of-

ownership and bargain-purchase criteria. Also under legacy GAAP, if a lease involves both land and

building components, the classification of those components must be assessed separately only if the

fair value of the land component is more than 25 percent of the fair value of both assets combined. If

the building element meets either the lease term or minimum lease payments criterion, then the

building element is classified by the lessee as a capital lease, and the land component as an operating

lease. Otherwise, the two components are combined and accounted for as an operating lease.

In contrast, under ASC 842, both a lessee and a lessor are required to separately account for the land

component of a lease unless doing so has an “insignificant” effect on the entity’s accounting (see

Section 3.1.1 for a discussion of this requirement).

4.1.1 Criterion 1: Transfer of ownership

When a lease specifies an automatic transfer of ownership, the lessee can direct the use of, and obtain

the underlying benefit from, the asset both during and after the lease term. Meeting this criterion therefore

indicates that the economic substance of the lease is akin to a sale, since the lessee effectively obtains

control of the underlying asset.

This criterion is met when the lease specifies that the lessor will provide the documents necessary to

legally transfer ownership of the asset to the lessee, including a bill of sale if applicable, provided that the

lessee performs in accordance with the lease terms. A provision requiring the lessee to pay a nominal fee

to the lessor when ownership of the asset is transferred does not preclude this criterion from being met.

However, a provision that allows, but does not require, the lessee to pay an amount to obtain ownership

of the underlying asset, regardless of whether the amount is nominal, does not constitute an automatic

transfer of ownership and should instead be evaluated as an option to purchase the asset.

Components 127

ASC 842-10-55-4

The criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(a) is met in leases that provide, upon the lessee ’s performance

in accordance with the terms of the lease, that the lessor should execute and deliver to the lessee such

documents (including, if applicable, a bill of sale) as may be required to release the underlying asset

from the lease and to transfer ownership to the lessee.

ASC 842-10-55-5

The criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(a) also is met in situations in which the lease requires the

payment by the lessee of a nominal amount (for example, the minimum fee required by the statutory

regulation to transfer ownership) in connection with the transfer of ownership.

ASC 842-10-55-6

A provision in a lease that ownership of the underlying asset is not transferred to the lessee if the

lessee elects not to pay the specified fee (whether nominal or otherwise) to complete the transfer is an

option to purchase the underlying asset. Such a provision does not satisfy the transfer-of-ownership

criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(a).

4.1.2 Criterion 2: Option to purchase

In the Board’s view, as discussed in paragraph BC71 of ASU 2016-02, an option to purchase the

underlying asset that a lessee is reasonably certain to exercise is not substantively different than a

provision that automatically transfers ownership of the underlying asset from the lessor to the lessee at

the end of the lease term. Therefore, like the automatic transfer-of-ownership criterion, satisfying this

criterion indicates that the economic substance of the transaction is akin to a sale of the underlying asset

to the lessee.

The Board intended “reasonably certain” to be a high threshold that would identify situations in which a

lessee has a significant economic incentive to exercise an option. Refer to Section 1.3 for more

information about the “reasonably certain” threshold.

4.1.3 Criterion 3: Lease term

The “economic life” of an asset can be expressed as either the period during which an asset is expected

to be economically useful or the period that corresponds to a quantity of production (expressed in units or

another relevant measure) that an asset is expected to generate. The classification guidance in ASC 842

considers coverage of the remaining economic life rather than the total economic life of an asset, as the

concept of controlling the asset looks to whether the lessee can obtain the remaining economic benefits

from using the asset. A lease term that spans the “major part” of the remaining economic life of the

underlying asset indicates that a lease is economically similar to a purchase of the underlying asset, and

that the lessee has the ability to obtain substantially all of the remaining economic benefits of the asset.

Economic Life: Either the period over which an asset is expected to be economically usable by one or

more users or the number of production or similar units expected to be obtained from an asset by one or

more users.

Components 128

The guidance in ASC 842 precludes entities from applying the economic life criterion to classify a lease if,

at the commencement date, the underlying asset is “at or near the end” of its economic life. The Board

included this exception in ASC 842 because, without this exception, similar leases could be classified

differently simply because they commence at different points during an asset’s economic life. For

example, an asset with a 10-year total economic life could be leased to 10 different lessees, each for one

year during its economic life. If the economic life criterion was applied to all 10 leases, then leases one

through nine would not meet the criterion, and lease 10 would satisfy the criterion, potentially leading to

different classification conclusions despite the economic similarity of all 10 leases.

Although ASC 842 does not stipulate “bright-line” thresholds for assessing what comprises the “major

part” of an asset’s remaining economic life or when a lease commences “near the end” of an asset’s

economic life, the implementation guidance in ASC 842-10-55-2 describes reasonable approaches that

may be used in making these assessments. This guidance states that it would be reasonable to conclude

that 75 percent or more of an asset’s remaining economic life comprises a “major part” of its remaining

economic life. It would also be reasonable to conclude that an asset for which 25 percent or less of its

economic life remains at lease commencement is “near the end” of its useful life.

The guidance in paragraph ASC 842-10-55-2 also states that it would be reasonable to conclude that 90

percent of an asset’s fair value represents “substantially all” of the asset’s fair value. The concept of

“substantially all” is used in Criterion 4, as discussed in Section 4.1.4.

ASC 842-10-55-2

When determining lease classification, one reasonable approach to assessing the criteria in

paragraphs 842-10-25-2(c) through (d) and 842-10-25-3(b)(1) would be to conclude:

a. Seventy-five percent or more of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset is a major part

of the remaining economic life of that underlying asset.

b. A commencement date that falls at or near the end of the economic life of the underlying asset

refers to a commencement date that falls within the last 25 percent of the total economic life of the

underlying asset.

c. Ninety percent or more of the fair value of the underlying asset amounts to substantially all the fair

value of the underlying asset.

Grant Thornton insights: Judgment in lieu of bright-line thresholds

The guidance in ASC 842 does not mandate numerical thresholds and allows entities to use judgment

in applying the economic life and fair value classification criteria. The guidance does suggest that

certain quantitative thresholds, such as 75 percent and 25 percent of an asset’s remaining economic

life and 90 percent of an asset’s fair value, are reasonable methods for applying the concepts of “major

part,” “at or near the end,” and “substantially all,” respectively, as described in ASC 842’s lease

classification criteria.

Components 129

The Board’s intent in excluding bright-line thresholds from the lease classification criteria, as discussed

in paragraph BC73 of ASU 2016-02, is to ensure that transactions that are only immaterially different,

such as one with a lease term comprising 74 percent of an asset’s remaining economic life and one

comprising 75 percent, do not end up with different accounting as a result of different classification

outcomes. However, the Board also wanted to ensure that the guidance in ASC 842 is scalable for

entities, meaning that entities can apply reasonable policies and controls to assess lease classification

based on the size of their lease portfolios.

We believe that entities should use caution when applying judgment in this area, and should first

consider how the terminology used in the lease classification criteria is already being applied in other

areas of U.S. GAAP. For example, the notion of “substantially all” is referenced in other areas of U.S.

GAAP and has often been thought of in terms of a 90 percent threshold. ASC 842 permits some

leeway with respect to historical bright-line thresholds (for example, if the present value of the lease

payments equals 91 percent of an asset’s fair value, judgment could be applied in determining whether

this constitutes substantially all of the asset’s fair value). But, the further an entity’s policy departs from

historical thresholds, particularly those that relate to an entity’s accounting policies outside the

application of ASC 842, the more difficult we believe it will be to support that policy.

When there is more than one underlying asset included in a lease component, ASC 842-10-25-5 clarifies

that the economic life attributable to the lease component should equal the economic life of the

predominant asset within the lease component. In the Board’s view, determining the predominant asset

will be straightforward in most cases, and if it is not clear, an entity should reconsider whether the rights

to use the underlying assets should be combined into a single lease component. See Section 3.1 for the

guidance relevant to identifying lease components.

ASC 842-10-25-5

If a single lease component contains the right to use more than one underlying asset (see

paragraphs 842-10-15-28 through 15-29), an entity shall consider the remaining economic life of the

predominant asset in the lease component for purposes of applying the criterion in paragraph 842-10-

25-2(c).

4.1.4 Criterion 4: Present value of lease payments and guaranteed residual value

If a lessee effectively guarantees that the lessor will recover substantially all of the underlying asset’s fair

value through the contractually required lease payments, then the lease is deemed to transfer control of

the underlying asset from the lessor to the lessee. To make this assessment, an entity should compute

both the present value of the lease payments and the present value of the residual value guaranteed by

the lessee that is not already included in the lease payments. See Section 1.8 for information about

determining the appropriate discount rate to use when computing these present values.

ASC 842 does not stipulate a “bright-line” threshold for assessing whether the present value of the lease

payments and any lessee-guaranteed residual value represents “substantially all” of an asset’s fair value,

but, similarly to the economic life criterion, the implementation guidance in ASC 842-10-55-2 states that it

is reasonable to conclude that an amount equal to 90 percent or more of an asset’s fair value is

“substantially all” of that fair value. See discussion of bright-line thresholds in Section 4.1.3.

Components 130

Refer to Section 1.9 for guidance on determining the fair value of an asset.

Grant Thornton insights: ‘First dollar loss’ residual value guarantee

Certain leases require the lessee to guarantee the asset’s residual value only up to a fixed amount. For

example, a lessee leases equipment for which it guarantees a residual value of $100,000 at the end of

the lease term, but the amount the lessee will pay is capped at $75,000. Therefore, the lessor is

exposed to residual value risk only if it sells the equipment after the end of the lease term for $25,000

or less.

Although the likelihood might be remote at lease commencement that the residual value will be less

than $25,000 when the lease expires, meaning that the lessee is effectively guaranteeing the full

expected residual value of $100,000, we believe that the contractually capped amount (in this case,

$75,000) should be used in assessing lease classification.

4.1.5 Criterion 5: No alternative use

An entity must consider whether the underlying asset is so specialized that it will have no alternative use

to the lessor at the end of the lease term. If the asset has no alternative use to the lessor at the end of the

lease term without the lessor incurring significant costs to rework the asset, or a significant change in

circumstances during the lease term, then the lessee would consume all, or substantially all, of the

asset’s remaining economic benefits over the lease term and effectively control the underlying asset.

In evaluating this criterion, an entity should consider contractual restrictions and practical limitations on a

lessor’s ability to redirect the asset for another use after the lease term. For example, a lessor might lack

the practical ability to redirect an asset for another use if, on account of the lessee’s remote location, the

lessor would incur significant costs to relocate the asset. Likewise, a substantive contractual term that

prohibits the lessor from redirecting an asset that contains the customer’s proprietary technology would

indicate that the asset has no alternative use to the lessor after the lease term, regardless of whether that

restriction could be lifted by terminating the contract. When assessing the impact of the terms of the

contract on the lessor’s ability to redirect the asset, an entity should not consider the possibility that the

contract could be terminated.

In paragraph BC71(e) of ASU 2016-02, the Board notes that the no-alternative-use criterion is rarely met

on its own. A contract that allows for the specialization of an asset to the point where it can be used only

by the lessee often contains other provisions intended to transfer substantially all of the remaining

benefits of the asset to the lessee. The Board notes that even if no alternative use is the only criterion met

in a lease, the economic substance of the agreement is still akin to a sale, and therefore the lease should

be accounted for as a sales-type and finance lease by the lessor and lessee, respectively.

ASC 842-10-55-7

In assessing whether an underlying asset has an alternative use to the lessor at the end of the lease

term in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-2(e), an entity should consider the effects of contractual

restrictions and practical limitations on the lessor’s ability to readily direct that asset for another use (for

example, selling it or leasing it to an entity other than the lessee). A contractual restriction on a lessor’s

ability to direct an underlying asset for another use must be substantive for the asset not to have an

Components 131

alternative use to the lessor. A contractual restriction is substantive if it is enforceable. A practical

limitation on a lessor’s ability to direct an underlying asset for another use exists if the lessor would

incur significant economic losses to direct the underlying asset for another use. A significant economic

loss could arise because the lessor either would incur significant costs to rework the asset or would

only be able to sell or re-lease the asset at a significant loss. For example, a lessor may be practically

limited from redirecting assets that either have design specifications that are unique to the lessee or

that are located in remote areas. The possibility of the contract with the customer being terminated is

not a relevant consideration in assessing whether the lessor would be able to readily direct the

underlying asset for another use.

At the crossroads: No-alternative-use lease classification criterion

The no-alternative-use lease classification criterion is new under ASC 842. Although, as noted above,

the Board expects it to be rare that this criterion is met on its own, entities will need to update their

processes and controls around lease classification to incorporate this new criterion.

Lessee classification example

Lessee leases a piece of nonspecialized manufacturing equipment from Lessor. The noncancellable

term is three years, with two one-year options to renew, both of which Lessee is reasonably certain to

exercise. The annual lease payments start at $50,000 at the beginning of year one, and increase each

year based on the percentage increase in the consumer price index (CPI) each year.

Lessee provides a guarantee to Lessor that the residual value of the equipment will be at least $10,000

at the end of the lease term. The lease does not transfer ownership to Lessee or provide an option for

Lessee to purchase the equipment. At the lease commencement date, the remaining economic life of

the equipment is seven years, and its fair value is $265,000. Lessee cannot readily determine the rate

implicit in the lease, and Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 7 percent.

Lessee evaluates the five classification criteria as follows:

1. Does the lease transfer ownership of the underlying asset?

No, ownership of the underlying asset does not automatically transfer to Lessee.

2. Does the lease provide an option to purchase the underlying asset that is reasonably certain to be

exercised?

No, the lease does not contain a purchase option.

3. Does the lease cover a “major part” of the underlying asset’s remaining economic life?

No. The lease term includes the noncancellable three-year term, as well as the two one-year options

that Lessee is reasonably certain to exercise. The lease term of five years represents 71 percent of

the underlying asset’s economic life. Lessee concludes that the lease term does not represent a

“major part” of the asset’s remaining economic life, as described in ASC 842-10-55-2.

Components 132

4. Does the consideration transferred to Lessor represent “substantially all” of the underlying asset’s

fair value?

No. The present value of the lease payments plus Lessee’s guarantee of the underlying asset’s

residual value equals $226,490, which represents 85 percent of the underlying asset’s fair value.

Lessee concludes that the present value of the lease payments plus the lessee’s residual value

guarantee does not represent substantially all of the underlying asset’s fair value.

The lease payments total $250,000, based on an annual fixed payment of $50,000. No escalation of

the lease payments is assumed, since the lease payments are calculated based on the index (CPI)

as of the lease commencement date (that is, if CPI doesn’t change over the lease term, then the

payments do not escalate). Using Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate of 7 percent, the present

value of the lease payments at lease commencement is $219,360, and the present value of

Lessee’s guarantee of the residual value ($10,000) is $7,130.

5. Does the lease convey the right to use an underlying asset so specialized that it has no alternative

use to the lessor after the lease term?

No, the equipment is not specialized.

Lessee determines the lease should be classified as an operating lease.

4.2 Additional lessor classification criteria

When a lease meets one of the five criteria described in Section 4.1, a lessor classifies the lease as a

sales-type lease. When a lease does not meet any of those criteria, a lessor must evaluate two additional

criteria described in 842-10-25-3(b):

 Whether the sum of the present values of (a) the lease payments, (b) any residual value guarantee

not included in the lease payments, and (c) any residual value guaranteed by third parties, either

equals or exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset

 Whether it is probable that the lessor will collect the lease payments and the residual value

guarantee(s)

If both of these criteria are met, then the lessor classifies the lease as a direct financing lease. If one or

both of these criteria are not met, the lessor classifies the lease as an operating lease.

ASC 842-10-25-3

When none of the criteria in paragraph 842-10-25-2 are met:

a. A lessee shall classify the lease as an operating lease.

b. A lessor shall classify the lease as either a direct financing lease or an operating lease. A lessor

shall classify the lease as an operating lease unless both of the following criteria are met, in which

case the lessor shall classify the lease as a direct financing lease:

1. The present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual value guaranteed by the

lessee that is not already reflected in the lease payments in accordance with paragraph 842-

Components 133

10-30-5(f) and/or any other third party unrelated to the lessor equals or exceeds substantially

all of the fair value of the underlying asset

2. It is probable that the lessor will collect the lease payments plus any amount necessary to

satisfy a residual value guarantee.

Grant Thornton insights: Contracts with repurchase arrangements

Under ASC 606-10-55-68, a customer does not obtain control of an asset in a sales contract that

contains a repurchase right that provides the seller with an obligation or the right to repurchase the

asset sold. This is because the repurchase agreement prevents the customer from fully directing the

use of the asset and obtaining substantially all of its remaining economic benefits. In certain cases, a

seller is required to account for a contract with a customer that contains a repurchase right as a lease

under ASC 842. (See Section 6.6.2 for more information about contracts with repurchase rights.)

Contracts with customers that require lease accounting due to repurchase rights generally meet at

least one of the five sales-type lease criteria. Therefore, even though a sale would not be recognized

under ASC 606, a sales-type lease may be recognized under ASC 842.

For example, if the seller has the right, but not the obligation, to repurchase an asset, the lease term

could be viewed as perpetual since the lessor’s option to terminate the lease is not reflected in the

lease term. Therefore, the lease term would cover a “major part” of the asset’s remaining economic

life.

Also, if the present value of the consideration paid by the customer approximates an asset’s fair

value, which is often the case in a contract with a customer, then the present value of the lease

payments would equal or exceed substantially all of the asset’s fair value.

Figure 4.2: Lessor classification

This figure illustrates the two additional criteria that a lessor must consider to determine whether a lease

is classified as a direct financing or operating lease.

Components 134

4.2.1 Present value of lease payments and guaranteed residual value

To distinguish between a direct financing lease and an operating lease, a lessor must essentially perform

the same present value calculation required to assess whether the lease is a sales-type lease, except

that the present value includes residual guarantees provided by parties other than the lessee, in addition

to the present value of any lessee-guaranteed residual value.

The objective of the direct financing lease criteria is to identify contracts in which the lessor’s risk is

converted from asset risk (the risk inherent in owning an asset, which the lessor retains in an operating

lease) to credit risk (the risk inherent in financing another entity’s purchase of an asset). Accordingly, the

lessor’s efforts to offload asset risk to parties other than the lessee via a residual value guarantee must

be considered as part of this analysis. If the sum of the present value of the lease payments and all

residual value guarantees is not greater than or equal to substantially all of the asset’s fair value, then the

lessor must classify the lease as an operating lease.

4.2.2 Collectibility

A lessor must consider the collectibility of lease payments when assessing whether a lease is a direct

financing lease. If it is not probable that the lessor will collect the lease payments plus any amount

needed to satisfy a residual value guarantee, then the lessor’s conversion of asset risk to credit risk is

nonsubstantive. If collectibility is not probable, it would be inappropriate to classify the lease as a direct

financing lease, and the lessor must instead classify the lease as an operating lease.

Components 135

At the crossroads

Collectibility and lessor classification

Under legacy GAAP, if collectibility of the lease payments is not probable, then the lessor defaults to

operating lease accounting. Under ASC 842, collectibility is evaluated differently depending on whether

the lease meets any of the criteria for classification as a sales-type lease. Since the accounting for a

sales-type lease is aligned with the accounting for sales to customers under ASC 606, the lessor must

recognize any cash received from the lessee as a deposit liability if collectibility of the lease payments

and lessee residual value guarantee is not probable in a sales-type lease. On the other hand, a direct

financing lease is unlike a sale of an underlying asset, so there was no need for the Board to align the

accounting for a direct financing lease with the revenue recognition guidance in ASC 606. Accordingly,

if collectibility is not probable in a non-sales-type lease, then the lessor must apply operating lease

accounting, similar to the legacy classification guidance under ASC 840.

Important uncertainties and lessor classification

Under legacy GAAP, a lessor classifies a lease as an operating lease if the lease includes important

uncertainties related to the amount of unreimbursable costs incurred by the lessor. “Important

uncertainties” include guarantees beyond a typical product warranty, such as committing to repair

equipment throughout a three-year lease term when the standard warranty for the equipment covers

only one year, or protection against an asset’s obsolescence.

ASC 842 does not carry forward a similar requirement with respect to “important uncertainties.”

Therefore, leases that would have qualified as sales-type leases under ASC 840, except for the

existence of important uncertainties, may now qualify as sales-type leases under ASC 842.

Lessor classification example

Lessor leases a piece of nonspecialized manufacturing equipment to Lessee. The noncancellable term

is three years, with two one-year options to renew, both of which Lessor is reasonably certain Lessee

will exercise. The annual lease payments start at $50,000 at the beginning of year one, and increase

each year based on the percentage increase in the consumer price index (CPI) each year.

Lessee guarantees Lessor that the residual value of the equipment will be at least $10,000 at the end of

the lease term. In addition, a third party guarantees to Lessor that the residual value of the equipment

will be at least $25,000 at the end of the lease term. For example, if the equipment is sold for $18,000 at

the end of the lease term, then Lessee would owe nothing under its residual value guarantee, and the

third-party guarantor would owe Lessor $7,000. If the equipment is sold for $8,000 at the end of the

lease term, then Lessee would owe $2,000 under its residual value guarantee, and the third party

guarantor would owe Lessor $15,000.

The lease does not transfer ownership to Lessee or provide an option for Lessee to purchase the

equipment. At the lease commencement date, the remaining economic life of the equipment is seven

years, and its fair value is $265,000. The rate implicit in the lease is 6 percent.

Lessor evaluates the five classification criteria as follows:

Components 136

1. Does the lease transfer ownership of the underlying asset?

No, ownership of the underlying asset does not automatically transfer to Lessee.

2. Does the lease provide an option to purchase the underlying asset that is reasonably certain to be

exercised?

No, the lease does not contain a purchase option.

3. Does the lease cover a “major part” of the underlying asset’s remaining economic life?

No. The lease term includes the noncancellable three-year term, as well as the two one-year

options that Lessor is reasonably certain will be exercised. The lease term of five years represents

71 percent of the underlying asset’s economic life. Lessor concludes that the lease term does not

represent a major part of the asset’s remaining economic life.

4. Does the consideration transferred to Lessor represent “substantially all” of the underlying asset’s

fair value?

No. The present value of the lease payments plus Lessee’s guarantee of the underlying asset’s

residual value equals $230,728, which represents 87 percent of the underlying asset’s fair value.

Lessor concludes that the present value of the lease payments plus the lessee’s residual value

guarantee does not represent substantially all of the underlying asset’s fair value.

The lease payments total $250,000, based on an annual fixed payment of $50,000. No escalation of

the lease payments is assumed, since the lease payments are calculated based on the index (CPI)

as of the lease commencement date (that is, if CPI doesn’t change over the lease term, then the

payments do not escalate). Using the rate of 6 percent implicit in the lease, the present value of the

lease payments at lease commencement is $223,255, and the present value of Lessee’s guarantee

of the residual value ($10,000) is $7,473. I

5. Does the lease convey the right to use an underlying asset so specialized that it has no alternative

use to the lessor after the lease term?

No, the equipment is not specialized.

Lessor determines the lease should not be classified as a sales-type lease.

Lessor next applies the two lessor-specific classification criteria to complete its classification analysis:

1. Does the combined present value of the lease payments plus the guaranteed residual value,

including third-party guarantees, equal or exceed “substantially all” of the fair value of the underlying

asset?

Yes. The present value of the lease payments plus all guarantees of the underlying asset’s residual

value equals $241,937, which represents 91 percent of the underlying asset’s fair value. Lessor

concludes that the present value of the lease payments plus all guarantees of the underlying asset’s

residual value represents substantially all of the underlying asset’s fair value.

The lease payments total $250,000, based on an annual fixed payment of $50,000. No escalation of

the lease payments is assumed, since the lease payments are calculated based on the index (CPI)

as of the lease commencement date (that is, if CPI doesn’t change over the lease term, t hen the

payments do not escalate). Using the rate of 6 percent implicit in the lease, the present value of the

lease payments at lease commencement is $223,255, the present value of Lessee’s guarantee of

Components 137

the residual value ($10,000) is $7,473, and the present value of the third-party guarantee of the

residual value ($15,000) is $11,209.

2. Is it probable that Lessor will collect the lease payments plus any amount necessary to satisfy a

residual value guarantee?

Yes. Lessor assesses the creditworthiness of Lessee and the third- party guarantor, and deems it

probable that it will collect the lease payments and residual value guarantees.

Lessor determines that the lease should be classified as a direct financing lease.

4.3 Other classification matters

ASC 842-10 contains additional guidance for reassessing lease classification, classifying related-party

leases, lessee indemnification for environmental contamination, classification for leases of assets owned

by a governmental unit or authority, and leases acquired in a business combination. These items are

discussed in further detail in this section.

4.3.1 Reassessment of lease classification

Once a lease has been classified at lease commencement, its classification should be reassessed only

under certain circumstances. For both lessors and lessees, if the lease is modified and that modification

is not treated as a separate contract, then lease classification is reassessed as of the modification date.

Lessees should also reassess the classification of a lease if either the lease term or its assessment of

whether it is reasonably certain to exercise a purchase option changes. Other changes in circumstances

do not warrant a classification reassessment, including a change in whether an underlying asset has no

alternative use to the lessor at the end of the lease term or a change in a lessor’s assessment of the

collectibility of lease payments for reasons other than a contract modification.

When lease classification is reassessed, all inputs to the assessment must be updated as of the

reassessment date. The reassessment date is the date of the execution of the lease amendment, if the

reassessment is due to a modification of the lease. If there is a change in the likelihood that a lessee will

exercise an option to extend or terminate a lease or an option to purchase the underlying asset, then the

reassessment date is the date when this change is deemed to occur. Inputs to the reclassification

assessment, including discount rate, fair value and expected life of the underlying asset, lease payments,

and variable payments dependent on an index or rate, are all determined as of the reassessment date.

Any other changes in the terms and conditions of the lease, or in the underlying facts and circumstances,

should be considered by the entity in the classification reassessment.

ASC 842-10-25-9

If a lease is modified and that modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance

with paragraph 842-10-25-8, the entity shall reassess the classification of the lease in accordance with

paragraph 842-10-25-1 as of the effective date of the modification.

4.3.2 Related-party lease classification

The guidance in ASC 842-10-55 specifies that related-party leases should be evaluated using the same

criteria used for leases between unrelated parties and should be classified based on legally enforceable

Components 138

terms and conditions in the lease. The definition of “related parties” used in ASC 842 is the same

definition used elsewhere in the Codification.

ASC 842-10-55-12

Leases between related parties should be classified in accordance with the lease classification criteria

applicable to all other leases on the basis of the legally enforceable terms and conditions of the lease.

In the separate financial statements of the related parties, the classification and accounting for the

leases should be the same as for leases between unrelated parties.

Related Parties: Related parties include:

a. Affiliates of the entity

b. Entities for which investments in their equity securities would be required, absent the election of the

fair value option under the Fair Value Option Subsection of Section 825-10-15, to be accounted for by

the equity method by the investing entity

c. Trusts for the benefit of employees, such as pension and profit-sharing trusts that are managed by or

under the trusteeship of management

d. Principal owners of the entity and members of their immediate families

e. Management of the entity and members of their immediate families

f. Other parties with which the entity may deal if one party controls or can significantly influence the

management or operating policies of the other to an extent that one of the transacting parties might

be prevented from fully pursuing its own separate interests

g. Other parties that can significantly influence the management or operating policies of the transacting

parties or that have an ownership interest in one of the transacting parties and can significantly

influence the other to an extent that one or more of the transacting parties might be prevented from

fully pursuing its own separate interests.

Grant Thornton insights: Common control leases

The guidance in ASC 842-10-55-12 addresses the classification and accounting for leases between

related parties, focusing on “legally enforceable terms and conditions of the lease.” Among related-

party leases, leases between entities under common control often have less formal documentation of

terms and conditions, which will challenge practitioners to determine what are the legally enforceable

terms and conditions in these arrangements.

To identify the legally enforceable terms and conditions in related-party leases, an entity should first

look to the written lease agreement, provided that a written agreement exists. If a related-party lease is

documented in the same manner as leases containing similar assets with unrelated parties, and if the

Components 139

terms and conditions of the agreement are legally enforceable, then the entity should analyze the lease

similarly to its unrelated-party leases. However, if the facts and circumstances surrounding a related-

party lease differ from leases involving similar assets with unrelated parties (such as the installation of

long-term fixed assets in a space leased for less than one year) or if there is limited or no written

documentation of the terms and conditions, then the entity should endeavor to understand the

enforceable rights and obligations regarding the use of the underlying asset, taking into consideration

the customary business practices between the parties. An entity may need to obtain input from legal

counsel to understand the enforceability of any terms, conditions, and mutual understanding, whether

or not they are documented. Once the legally enforceable terms and conditions are identified, the entity

should base its lease assessment on those terms and conditions.

At the crossroads: Related-party leases

The guidance in ASC 842-10-55-12 requires entities to determine the classification of a related-party

lease based on “legally enforceable terms and conditions,” which represents a departure from legacy

GAAP where the objective is “to recognize economic substance rather than legal form.” This difference

may result in a change in the way entities evaluate these leases, especially for those between entities

under common control.

4.3.3 Lessee indemnification for environmental contamination

When a lease contains a provision that requires the lessee to indemnify the lessor for environmental

contamination, whether preexisting or caused by the lessee’s use of the underlying asset during the lease

term, that provision should not be considered when determining how to classify the lease. In other words,

a lessor should not include any payments expected to be made by the lessee to satisfy an environmental

contamination indemnification in the lease payments for purposes of determining whether the present

value classification criterion is met.

ASC 842-10-55-15

A provision that requires lessee indemnification for environmental contamination, whether for

environmental contamination caused by the lessee during its use of the underlying asset over the lease

term or for preexisting environmental contamination, should not affect the classification of the lease.

4.3.4 Leases involving facilities owned by a government unit or authority

ASC 842 provides additional guidance for leases involving government owned-facilities, such as airports,

bus terminals, and ports. These leases can be difficult to assess, as the remaining economic life and the

fair value of the underlying asset is often difficult to determine. In these cases, if determining the fair value

or remaining economic life is impractical, and if there is no automatic transfer of ownership or purchase

option that the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise, then the lease should be classified as an

operating lease.

Components 140

There are six criteria that must all be met for a lease to be eligible for this guidance:

1. The underlying asset is owned by a governmental unit or authority.

2. The underlying asset is part of a larger facility operated on behalf of the lessor.

3. The underlying asset is a permanent structure that normally cannot be moved to a new location.

4. The lessor has the explicit right under the lease agreement or the applicable law to terminate the

lease at any time during the lease term.

5. The lease neither transfers ownership nor allows the lessee to purchase or otherwise acquire

ownership of the underlying asset.

6. The underlying asset or equivalent cannot be purchased or leased from a nongovernment unit or

authority.

Leases not meeting these criteria are classified based on the five general classification criteria outlined in

ASC 842-10-25-2.

ASC 842-10-55-13

Because of special provisions normally present in leases involving terminal space and other airport

facilities owned by a governmental unit or authority, the economic life of such facilities for purposes of

classifying a lease is essentially indeterminate. Likewise, it may not be practicable to determine the fair

value of the underlying asset. If it is impracticable to determine the fair value of the underlying asset

and such leases also do not provide for a transfer of ownership or a purchase option that the lessee

is reasonably certain to exercise, they should be classified as operating leases. This guidance also

applies to leases of other facilities owned by a governmental unit or authority in which the rights of the

parties are essentially the same as in a lease of airport facilities. Examples of such leases may be

those involving facilities at ports and bus terminals. The guidance in this paragraph is intended to apply

to leases only if all of the following conditions are met:

a. The underlying asset is owned by a governmental unit or authority.

b. The underlying asset is part of a larger facility, such as an airport, operated by or on behalf of the

lessor.

c. The underlying asset is a permanent structure or a part of a permanent structure, such as a

building, that normally could not be moved to a new location.

d. The lessor, or in some circumstances a higher governmental authority, has the explicit right under

the lease agreement or existing statutes or regulations applicable to the underlying asset to

terminate the lease at any time during the lease term, such as by closing the facility containing the

underlying asset or by taking possession of the facility.

e. The lease neither transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee nor allows the lessee to

purchase or otherwise acquire ownership of the underlying asset.

f. The underlying asset or equivalent asset in the same service area cannot be purchased or leased

from a nongovernmental unit or authority. An equivalent asset in the same service area is an asset

that would allow continuation of essentially the same service or activity as afforded by the

underlying asset without any appreciable difference in economic results to the lessee.

Components 141

ASC 842-10-55-14

Leases of underlying assets not meeting all of the conditions in paragraph 842-10-55-13 are subject to

the same criteria for classifying leases under this Subtopic that are applicable to leases not involving

government-owned property.

4.3.5 Leases acquired in a business combination

An entity that acquires a lease in a business combination should maintain the acquiree’s lease

classification, as determined based on the classification guidance in ASC 842. The acquirer should revisit

the acquiree’s original classification only if there is a lease modification in connection with the business

combination that is not accounted for as a separate contract.

Although the classification of a lease acquired in a business combination is not reassessed, the acquired

lease is measured at the acquisition date as if it were a new lease. In order to measure the lease, the

acquirer must assess all of the following at the acquisition date:

 The lease term

 Options to purchase the underlying asset

 Lease payments, including amounts probable of being owed by the lessee under a residual value

guarantee

 The discount rate

As discussed in paragraph BC415 of ASU 2016-02, for an acquiree that is a lessee, the lease liability is

measured on the acquisition date at the present value of the remaining lease payments. An acquiree’s

right-of-use asset is measured at the amount of the lease liability adjusted for any off-market terms in the

lease. Under ASC 805, only amounts that represent an asset or a liability are recorded in a business

combination, and therefore prepaid or accrued rent are not recognized since they do not meet the

definition of an asset or liability. However, the timing of lease payments could affect the determination of

whether a lease is above or below market at the acquisition date. For example, a significant prepaid rent

balance at the acquiree might indicate that the lease is below market (favorable) from the lessee’s

perspective at the acquisition date, based on the remaining lease payments.

ASC 842-10-55-11

In a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit entity, the acquiring entity should retain

the previous lease classification in accordance with this Subtopic unless there is a lease modification

and that modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-

25-8.

Lessee accounting 142

5. Lessee accounting

5.1 General

Under ASC 842, lessees recognize most leases at the lease commencement date by recording a right-of-

use asset and a lease liability on the statement of financial position. The right-of-use asset represents the

lessee’s right to use the asset, and the lease liability represents the lessee’s obligation to make lease

payments, over the lease term. Refer to Section 1.1 for information about determining the

commencement date of the lease.

ASC 842-20-25-1

At the commencement date, a lessee shall recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability.

Right-of-Use Asset: An asset that represents a lessee’s right to use an underlying asset for the lease

term.

Lease Liability: A lessee’s obligation to make the lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a

discounted basis.

5.1.1 Short-term leases

Lessees may elect an accounting policy that allows them to forgo applying the recognition requirements

in ASC 842 to short-term leases. A similar election is not available for lessors. A “short-term” lease is

defined as a lease that, at commencement, (1) has a lease term of 12 months or less, and (2) does not

contain an option to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise. The

lease term includes the noncancellable period; any periods subject to renewal or termination options that

the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise or not to exercise, respectively; and any periods covered by

lessor options to either extend or terminate the lease. As a result, a short-term lease is not required to

have a maximum possible lease term of 12 months or less, and the existence of options to extend the

lease term beyond 12 months from the lease commencement date does not preclude the lease from

being a short-term lease if a lessee elects this accounting policy, as long as the lessee is not reasonably

certain to exercise those options.

A lessee that designates a lease as “short-term” at the commencement date must reevaluate this

conclusion any time there is a change in the lease term. A lease that does not meet the definition of a

short-term lease at the commencement date cannot be subsequently accounted for as a short-term lease.

For example, if a lease with an original term of five years has less than 12 months remaining as of the

reporting date, the lessee may not elect to apply short-term lease accounting to that lease as of the

reporting date.

Lessee accounting 143

Short-Term Lease: A lease that, at the commencement date, has a lease term of 12 months or less and

does not include an option to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is reasonably certain to

exercise.

In paragraph BC381 of ASU 2016-02, the Board acknowledges that a potentially long-term lease could be

structured to obtain short-term treatment. For example, a lease with a one-year noncancellable period

that offers nine one-year renewal options could ultimately be extended for 10 years without ever being

recognized on the lessee’s statement of financial position. However, significant economic disincentives

for both the lessee and lessor make it unlikely that many leases would be structured in such a way. In

addition, it would be increasingly difficult to support that a lessee is not reasonably certain to exercise a

renewal option after each successive renewal, which would likely lead to the lease ultimately being

recorded on the lessee’s statement of financial position.

A lessee that elects the short-term lease recognition exemption does not measure and record a right-of-

use asset and a lease liability for short-term leases. Instead, the lessee recognizes the lease payments

on a straight-line basis over the lease term and variable payments in the period when the corresponding

obligation is incurred. A lessee is permitted to elect the short-term lease recognition exemption by asset

class. For example, a lessee can apply the short-term lease recognition exemption to its equipment

leases but not to its real estate leases, or vice versa. Although this election exempts a lessee from

applying the recognition and measurement guidance in ASC 842 to short-term leases, it is nevertheless

required to provide additional disclosures about its short-term leases.

ASC 842-20-25-2

As an accounting policy, a lessee may elect not to apply the recognition requirements in this Subtopic

to short-term leases. Instead, a lessee may recognize the lease payments in profit or loss on a straight-

line basis over the lease term and variable lease payments in the period in which the obligation for

those payments is incurred (consistent with paragraphs 842-20-55-1 through 55-2). The accounting

policy election for short-term leases shall be made by class of underlying asset to which the right of use

relates.

Example 1 in ASC 842-20-55 shows how a lessee determines the lease term when applying the short-

term lease recognition exemption.

Example 1 – Short-Term Lease

ASC 842-20-55-14

Lessee has made an accounting policy election not to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities

that arise from short-term leases for any class of underlying asset.

ASC 842-20-55-15

Lessee accounting 144

Lessee enters into a 12-month lease of a vehicle, with an option to extend for another 12 months.

Lessee has considered all relevant factors and determined that it is not reasonably certain to exercise

the option to extend. Because at lease commencement Lessee is not reasonably certain to exercise

the option to extend, the lease term is 12 months.

ASC 842-20-55-16

The lease meets the definition of a short-term lease because the lease term is 12 months or less.

Consequently, consistent with Lessee’s accounting policy election, Lessee does not recognize the

right-of-use asset and the lease liability arising from this lease.

A lessee must reconsider whether the short-term lease exemption still applies if there is a change in

either the lease term or the likelihood that it will exercise a purchase option after the lessee initially

applies the short-term lease exemption to a contract. If the change causes the lease term to extend more

than 12 months beyond the end of the previous lease term, or if it becomes reasonably certain that the

lessee will exercise a purchase option, the lessee must discontinue applying the short-term lease

recognition exemption to that contract. Instead, the lessee must measure, classify, and recognize the

lease under the general guidance in ASC 842 as of the date when either the lease term or the likelihood

that it will exercise a purchase option changes.

ASC 842-20-25-3

If the lease term or the assessment of a lessee option to purchase the underlying asset changes such

that, after the change, the remaining lease term extends more than 12 months from the end of the

previously determined lease term or the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise its option to purchase

the underlying asset, the lease no longer meets the definition of a short-term lease and the lessee shall

apply the remainder of the guidance in this Topic as if the date of the change in circumstances is the

commencement date.

Grant Thornton insights: Short-term leases with a nonconsecutive period of use

A lease may contain the right to use an asset for nonconsecutive periods over the contract term, such

as a multiyear lease of seasonal retail space.

The definition of a “short-term” lease is a lease with a lease term of fewer than 12 months and without

a purchase option that the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise. “Lease term” is defined as the sum

of the periods, including nonconsecutive periods, during which the lessee has the right to use the

underlying asset. Note that the definition of a short-term lease does not refer to the length of the

contract term, but only the lease term. Therefore, we believe that a lease with a contract term of more

than 12 months, but a lease term of fewer than 12 months, meets the definition of a short-term lease

and that a lessee can apply the short-term lease exemption to this type of lease.

For example, Lessee enters into a three-year contract with Lessor to use retail space for three months

each year during the holiday season. During the nine months of each year when Lessee is not using

the retail space, Lessor may lease the space to other tenants. The contract term in this example is

three years, but the period of use (and the lease term) is only nine months, which is the sum of the

Lessee accounting 145

nonconsecutive periods during which Lessee has the right to use the underlying asset during the term

of the contract. This lease would qualify as a short-term lease, and Lessee may account for it off of the

statement of financial position if it elects the short-term lease recognition exemption for the class of

underlying assets that includes retail space.

5.2 Initial measurement

At the commencement date of the lease, a lessee measures and records a right-of-use asset and a lease

liability. A lessee initially measures the right-of-use asset and lease liability in the same manner whether

the lease is classified as an operating or a finance lease. However, the subsequent measurement and

expense recognition patterns differ between the two lease classifications.

The table in Figure 5.1 below summarizes the initial measurement of the right-of-use asset and lease

liability for lessees.

Figure 5.1: Initial measurement of right-of-use asset and lease liability

Right-of-use asset

Lease liability

+ Payments made at or before commencement

- Lease incentives received at or before

commencement

+ Initial direct costs

Present value of lease payments

5.2.1 Initial measurement of the lease liability

At the commencement date of the lease, a lessee initially measures the lease liability at the present value

of the remaining lease payments. Lease payments include the following items:

 Fixed payments and in-substance fixed payments, less lease incentives paid or payable

 Variable payments that depend on a rate or an index

 The exercise price of a purchase option that is reasonably certain to be exercised

 The amount of any termination penalty if the lease term assumes the termination option will be

exercised

 Structuring fees paid to special-purpose entity owners

 Amounts that the lessee is probable to owe under a residual value guarantee

The discount rate used in calculating the present value of the lease payments should be the rate implicit

in the lease, if readily determinable, or the lessee’s incremental borrowing rate if the rate implicit in the

lease is not readily determinable. Nonpublic entities also have the option to use a risk-free rate as the

Lessee accounting 146

discount rate. Refer to Section 1.4 for details about lease payments and Section 1.8 for details about

discount rates.

ASC 842-20-30-1

At the commencement date, a lessee shall measure both of the following:

a. The lease liability at the present value of the lease payments not yet paid, discounted using the

discount rate for the lease at lease commencement (as described in paragraphs 842-20-30-2

through 30-4)

b. The right-of-use asset as described in paragraph 842-20-30-5.

5.2.2 Initial measurement of the right-of-use asset

The right-of-use asset is initially measured at the commencement date of the lease. To measure the

right-of-use asset, a lessee takes the initial measurement of the lease liability and then (1) adds lease

payments made at or before the commencement date, (2) subtracts lease incentives received from the

lessor at or before the commencement date, and (3) adds any initial direct costs incurred by the lessee.

ASC 842-20-30-5

At the commencement date, the cost of the right-of-use asset shall consist of all of the following:

a. The amount of the initial measurement of the lease liability

b. Any lease payments made to the lessor at or before the commencement date, minus any lease

incentives received

c. Any initial direct costs incurred by the lessee (as described in paragraphs 842-10-30-9 through

30-10).

In paragraph BC220 of ASU 2016-02, the Board explains that it chose a cost-based measurement

approach for the right-of-use asset, rather than a fair value approach, to enhance comparability between

right-of-use assets and other nonfinancial assets, such as property, plant, and equipment, that are also

measured on a cost basis.

Grant Thornton insights: Capitalization thresholds for operating leases

In paragraph BC122 of ASU 2016-02, the Board notes that entities will likely be able to adopt

reasonable capitalization thresholds for determining which right-of-use assets and lease liabilities

should be recognized. The Board observed that the practice of applying a capitalization threshold for

leases may be consistent with an entity’s accounting policies in other areas of GAAP, such as

accounting for purchases of property, plant, and equipment.

We believe that a lessee should consider all relevant quantitative and qualitative factors impacting the

financial statements and related disclosures before applying a capitalization threshold to right-of-use

Lessee accounting 147

assets and lease liabilities. A lessee should consider the impact of using a capitalization threshold on

each financial statement line item, subtotals and totals, and disclosures, as well as on calculations that

depend on amounts reported in the financial statements, such as loan covenants and commonly used

financial ratios.

A lessee should separately evaluate the gross impact of omitting right-of-use assets and lease

liabilities below a threshold in the financial statements, rather than evaluating the net balance-sheet

effect. In our view, it would not be appropriate for a lessee to simply apply its current capitalization

threshold for property, plant, and equipment to its right-of-use assets and lease liabilities without further

analysis.

Lessee initial recognition

Lessee leases a machine to be used in its manufacturing facility. The lease term is five years, with no

option to renew the lease or to purchase the underlying asset. Lease payments are fixed at $50,000 due

at the beginning of each year. Lessee incurs $5,000 of initial direct costs, and receives a $3,000 cash

lease incentive from Lessor at the lease commencement date. Lessee cannot readily determine the rate

implicit in the lease, and will use its incremental borrowing rate of 6 percent as the discount rate for

purposes of calculating the lease liability.

Lessee measures the initial lease liability at $223,255, which represents the present value of the

$50,000 annual payments over five years, discounted at 6 percent. Lessee measures the right-of-use

asset at $225,255, which is equal to the lease liability adjusted for lease incentives received and initial

direct costs incurred ($223,255 – $3,000 + $5,000).

Lessee’s journal entry to initially record the lease is as follows (shown on a gross basis for illustrative

purposes):

Dr. Right-of-use asset $223,255

Cr. Lease liability $223,255

Dr. Cash (incentive) $ 3,000

Cr. Right-of-use asset $ 3,000

Dr. Right-of-use asset $ 5,000

Cr. Cash (initial direct costs) $ 5,000

At the crossroads: Capping the initial measurement of the right-of-use asset

Under legacy GAAP, a lessee is required to recognize a capital lease asset and liability at the lower

of the present value of the minimum lease payments or the fair value of the underlying asset at lease

inception. ASC 842 does not include a similar requirement. As a result, it is possible, although

improbable, that a right-of-use asset could be initially measured at an amount greater than the fair

value of the underlying asset. If such circumstances arise, an entity should ensure that it has used the

Lessee accounting 148

appropriate discount rate to compute the present value of lease payments, and consider whether a

triggering event has occurred that would require assessment of the right-of-use asset for impairment

under ASC 360-10.

5.3 Finance lease subsequent measurement

For finance leases, a lessee must adjust the lease liability each period by increasing the liability to reflect

interest expense recognized, and reducing the liability for any lease payments made, during each period.

The right-of-use asset in a finance lease is measured each period at cost, less accumulated amortization

and, if applicable, impairment.

Both the liability and the right-of-use asset are subject to the remeasurement considerations in ASC 842-

10-35-1 through 35-5, which are discussed in Section 5.8.

ASC 842-20-35-1

After the commencement date, for a finance lease, a lessee shall measure both of the following:

a. The lease liability by increasing the carrying amount to reflect interest on the lease liability and

reducing the carrying amount to reflect the lease payments made during the period. The lessee

shall determine the interest on the lease liability in each period during the lease term as the

amount that produces a constant periodic discount rate on the remaining balance of the liability,

taking into consideration the reassessment requirements in paragraphs 842-10-35-1 through 35-5.

b. The right-of-use asset at cost less any accumulated amortization and any accumulated impairment

losses, taking into consideration the reassessment requirements in paragraphs 842-10-35-1

through 35-5.

A lessee amortizes the right-of-use asset in a finance lease from the commencement date of the lease to

the earlier of (a) the end of the useful life of the right-of-use asset or (b) the end of the lease term. If the

lease transfers ownership or contains an option to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is

reasonably certain to exercise, the right-of-use asset should be amortized over the useful life of the

underlying asset.

Amortization of the right-of-use asset should be recognized on a straight-line basis, unless another

systematic basis is more representative of the pattern in which the lessee expects to consume the asset’s

future economic benefits.

If the lease liability is remeasured due to changes in payments or other events, as discussed in

Section 5.8, the right-of-use asset is likewise adjusted. After the adjustment, the amortization of the right-

of-use asset is adjusted prospectively from the date of remeasurement to reflect a straight-line (or other

systematic) amortization pattern of the right-of-use asset.

Lessee accounting 149

Amortization of the Right-of-Use Asset for a Finance Lease

ASC 842-20-35-7

A lessee shall amortize the right-of-use asset on a straight-line basis, unless another systematic basis

is more representative of the pattern in which the lessee expects to consume the right-of-use asset’s

future economic benefits. When the lease liability is remeasured and the right-of-use asset is adjusted

in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-4, amortization of the right-of-use asset shall be adjusted

prospectively from the date of remeasurement.

ASC 842-20-35-8

A lessee shall amortize the right-of-use asset from the commencement date to the earlier of the end of

the useful life of the right-of-use asset or the end of the lease term. However, if the lease transfers

ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee or the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise an

option to purchase the underlying asset, the lessee shall amortize the right-of-use asset to the end of

the useful life of the underlying asset.

For accounting purposes, the right to control the use of the underlying asset is the same as physically

using the asset. Therefore, the extent of the lessee’s actual use of the asset should not impact its pattern

of amortization.

ASC 842-20-55-3

This Subtopic considers the right to control the use of the underlying asset as the equivalent of physical

use. If the lessee controls the use of the underlying asset, recognition of lease cost in accordance with

paragraph 842-20-25-6(a) or amortization of the right-of-use asset in accordance with paragraph 842-

20-35-7 should not be affected by the extent to which the lessee uses the underlying asset.

5.3.1 Finance lease expense recognition

A lessee in a finance lease recognizes the following items in the statement of comprehensive income for

each period, unless the costs must be capitalized under other guidance:

 Interest expense and amortization expense, calculated as discussed in this section.

 Variable lease payments that were not included in the lease liability (because they were not based on

a rate or an index) as an expense in the period those obligations are incurred (see Section 1.4.3 for

further discussion of recognizing variable lease payments)

 Any impairment of the right-of-use asset, as discussed in Section 5.6

Lessee accounting 150

Finance Leases

ASC 842-20-25-5

After the commencement date, a lessee shall recognize in profit or loss, unless the costs are included

in the carrying amount of another asset in accordance with other Topics:

a. Amortization of the right-of-use asset and interest on the lease liability

b. Variable lease payments not included in the lease liability in the period in which the obligation for

those payments is incurred (see paragraphs 842-20-55-1 through 55-2)

c. Any impairment of the right-of-use asset determined in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-9.

5.4 Operating lease subsequent measurement

The lease liability associated with an operating lease is subsequently measured each period at the

present value of the lease payments that are not yet paid. The present value is calculated using the

discount rate determined at commencement date of the lease, unless the rate has been updated in

accordance with ASC 842-20-35-5.

The right-of-use asset under an operating lease is subsequently measured based on the same

methodology used for its initial measurement, unless the asset has been impaired. That is, the right-of-

use asset is subsequently measured at the carrying amount of the lease liability, adjusted for (1) prepaid

or accrued lease payments, (2) the remaining balance of lease incentives received, (3) unamortized initial

direct costs, and (4) an impairment charge if the asset has not been previously impaired. This method is

referred to as the “Adjustment to lease liability” approach in Figure 5.2.

A second way to subsequently measure the right-of-use asset is to reduce the previous carrying amount

by subtracting the difference between the lease cost (that is, the straight-line lease expense recognized

during the current period) and the interest component of the adjustment to the lease liability. This method

is referred to as the “Adjusted lease cost” approach in Figure 5.2.

A third way to subsequently measure the right-of-use asset is to reduce the previous carrying amount by

subtracting the amount necessary to reconcile the interest method–based adjustment to the lease liability,

with the current-period cash paid and the straight-line expense recognized during the period. This method

is referred to as the “Residual amount” approach in Figure 5.2.

The three methodologies for calculating subsequent adjustments to the right-of-use asset are

summarized in Figure 5.2.

Lessee accounting 151

Figure 5.2: Operating lease right-of-use (ROU) asset remeasurement

For information about measuring a right-of-use asset that has been impaired, refer to Section 5.6.

At the crossroads: Operating lease expense recognition

If the description of how to subsequently measure the right-of-use asset in an operating lease seems

complex, it’s because the guidance was written in a way to allow the liability to be subsequently

measured under the interest method, while retaining the straight-line expense recognition pattern for

operating leases from legacy GAAP.

This operating lease accounting model is unconventional in that the amounts recognized on the

lessee’s statement of financial position and statement of comprehensive income are measured

independently. In accounting jargon, the statement of financial position and the statement of

comprehensive income accounts associated with operating leases do not “articulate” as they typically

would under double-entry accrual accounting.

This feature of ASC 842’s operating lease accounting model allows lessees to measure the lease

liability as if it were debt, while following the straight-line recognition pattern of an executory contract for

lease expense. This allowed the Board to satisfy its objective of requiring accounting on the statement

of financial position for most leases while retaining the straight-line operating lease expense pattern

that many stakeholders support.

Lessee accounting 152

ASC 842-20-35-3

After the commencement date, for an operating lease, a lessee shall measure both of the following:

a. The lease liability at the present value of the lease payments not yet paid discounted using the

discount rate for the lease established at the commencement date (unless the rate has been

updated after the commencement date in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-5, in which case

that updated rate shall be used)

b. The right-of-use asset at the amount of the lease liability, adjusted for the following, unless the

right-of-use asset has been previously impaired, in which case the right-of-use asset is measured

in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-10 after the impairment:

1. Prepaid or accrued lease payments

2. The remaining balance of any lease incentives received, which is the amount of the gross

lease incentives received net of amounts recognized previously as part of the single lease cost

described in paragraph 842-20-25-6(a)

3. Unamortized initial direct costs

4. Impairment of the right-of-use asset.

5.4.1 Operating lease expense recognition

A lessee recognizes the cost of an operating lease on a straight-line basis, taking into account any

impairment or other adjustments to the right-of-use asset. Each reporting period, lease cost is calculated

in a manner that causes the remaining cost of the lease to be recognized on a straight-line basis over the

remaining lease term. The “remaining cost of the lease” consists of (1) the total lease payments, paid and

unpaid, reflecting any adjustment triggered by a remeasurement event or modification, plus (2) the total

initial direct costs attributable to the lease, less (3) the periodic lease cost recognized in prior periods. A

lessee also recognizes variable payments that were not included in the lease liability (because the

payments were not based on a rate or an index) as expenses in the period the obligation for the

payments is incurred. Additionally, if a right-of-use asset is determined to be impaired, the impairment

charge is recognized in the period it is incurred. For guidance on the impairment of a right-of-use asset,

see Section 5.6.

Lease cost is recognized in the statement of comprehensive income, unless the cost must be capitalized

under other guidance.

ASC 842-20-25-6

After the commencement date, a lessee shall recognize all of the following in profit or loss, unless the

costs are included in the carrying amount of another asset in accordance with other Topics:

a. A single lease cost, calculated so that the remaining cost of the lease (as described in

paragraph 842-20-25-8) is allocated over the remaining lease term on a straight-line basis unless

another systematic and rational basis is more representative of the pattern in which benefit is

expected to be derived from the right to use the underlying asset (see paragraph 842-20-55-3),

Lessee accounting 153

unless the right-of-use asset has been impaired in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-9, in

which case the single lease cost is calculated in accordance with paragraph 842-20-25-7

b. Variable lease payments not included in the lease liability in the period in which the obligation for

those payments is incurred (see paragraphs 842-20-55-1 through 55-2)

c. Any impairment of the right-of-use asset determined in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-9.

ASC 842-20-25-8

Throughout the lease term, the remaining cost of an operating lease for which the right-of-use asset

has not been impaired consists of the following:

a. The total lease payments (including those paid and those not yet paid), reflecting any adjustment

to that total amount resulting from either a remeasurement in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-

35-4 through 35-5 or a lease modification; plus

b. The total initial direct costs attributable to the lease; minus

c. The periodic lease cost recognized in prior periods.

Example 4 in ASC 842-20-55 provides a comprehensive illustration of a lessee’s accounting for an

operating lease.

Example 4—Recognition and Initial and Subsequent Measurement by a Lessee

in an Operating Lease

ASC 842-20-55-41

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease for 5,000 square feet of office space. The annual lease payment

is $10,000, paid in arrears, and increases 5 percent each year during the lease term. Lessee’s

incremental borrowing rate at lease commencement is 6 percent. Lessee classifies the lease as an

operating lease in accordance with paragraphs 842-10-25-2 through 25-3. Lessee incurs initial direct

costs of $5,000.

ASC 842-20-55-42

At the commencement date, Lessee receives a $10,000 cash payment from Lessor that Lessee

accounts for as a lease incentive. Lessee measures the lease liability at the present value of the

10 remaining lease payments ($10,000 in Year 1, increasing by 5 percent each year thereafter),

discounted at the rate of 6 percent, which is $90,434. Lessee also measures a right-of-use asset of

$85,434 (the initial measurement of the lease liability + the initial direct costs of $5,000 – the lease

incentive of $10,000).

ASC 842-20-55-43

During the first year of the lease, Lessee determines the remaining cost of the lease as the sum of the

following:

Lessee accounting 154

a. The total lease payments of $115,779 (the sum of the 10 escalating payments to Lessor during the

lease term of $125,779 − the lease incentive paid to Lessee at the commencement date of

$10,000)

b. The total initial direct costs attributable to the lease of $5,000.

The amount of the remaining lease cost is therefore $120,779 ($115,779 + $5,000). Consequently,

Lessee determines that the single lease cost to be recognized every year throughout the lease term is

$12,078 ($120,779 ÷ 10 years). This assumes that there are no remeasurements of the lease liability or

modifications to the lease throughout the lease term.

ASC 842-20-55-44

At the end of Year 1, the carrying amount of the lease liability is $85,860 (9 remaining lease payments,

discounted at the rate of 6 percent), and the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset is the amount of

the liability, adjusted for the following:

a. Accrued lease payments of $2,578 (the amount of payments to Lessor to be recognized as part of

the single lease cost each year during the lease of $12,578 [total payments to Lessor of $125,779

÷ 10 years] − the first year’s lease payment of $10,000)

b. Unamortized initial direct costs of $4,500 (gross initial direct costs of $5,000 – amounts recognized

previously as part of the single lease cost of $500 [total initial direct costs of $5,000 ÷ 10 years])

c. The remaining balance of the lease incentive of $9,000 (gross lease incentive of $10,000 –

amounts recognized previously as part of the single lease cost of $1,000 [total lease incentives of

$10,000 ÷ 10 years]).

Therefore, at the end of Year 1, Lessee measures the right-of-use asset at the amount of $78,782

($85,860 – $2,578 + $4,500 – $9,000).

ASC 842-20-55-45

At the beginning of Year 2, Lessee determines the remaining cost of the lease to be $108,701 (the total

lease payments of $115,779 + the total initial direct costs of $5,000 – the single lease cost recognized

in Year 1 of $12,078). The single lease cost to be recognized in Year 2 is still $12,078 ($108,701 ÷ 9

years). For the purposes of the Example, only the first two years’ determination of the single lease cost

are shown. However, the single lease cost will be determined in the same way as in Years 1 and 2 for

the remainder of the lease and, in this Example, will continue to equal $12,078 every period for the

remainder of the lease term assuming that there are no remeasurements of the lease liability or

modifications to the lease.

ASC 842-20-55-46

At the end of Year 2, the carrying amount of the lease liability is $80,511, and the carrying amount

of the right-of-use asset is $71,855 (the carrying amount of the lease liability of $80,511 – the accrued

lease payments of $4,656 + the unamortized initial direct costs of $4,000 – the remaining balance

of the lease incentive received of $8,000). For the purposes of the Example, the subsequent

measurement of the lease liability and the subsequent measurement of the right-of-use asset are

shown only for the first two years. However, Lessee will continue to measure the lease liability and the

right-of-use asset for this lease in the same manner throughout the remainder of the lease term.

Lessee accounting 155

5.4.2 Lease incentives neither paid nor payable at commencement

Some lessors provide lease incentives to lessees that are paid after lease commencement and are not

“payable” until a condition is satisfied. For example, in many real estate leases, the lessor agrees to

reimburse the lessee for costs incurred to construct leasehold improvements up to a certain amount. The

lessor might not contractually owe any amounts to the lessee until the lessee provides evidence that it

has incurred qualifying expenditures.

In these cases, we believe it is acceptable for the lessee to treat the lease incentive as a reduction to the

lease payments as of the commencement date, provided that the lessee is reasonably certain to incur

qualifying expenditures up to the contractual reimbursement limit. Otherwise, we believe that upon

incurring qualifying expenditures, the lessee should reduce its right-of-use asset and lease liability, and

either (1) recognize the effect of the lease incentive prospectively or (2) recognize a cumulative catch-up

adjustment to lease expense so that, prospectively, periodic lease expense is recognized as if the lease

incentive was receivable as of the commencement date.

Lease incentives neither paid nor payable at commencement

Lessee leases retail space from Lessor for five years. The lease commences on January 1, 20X1.

Lease payments include fixed annual payments of $50,000, payable in arrears. Lessor agrees to

reimburse Lessee for qualifying costs of constructing leasehold improvements, which are Lessee’s

assets, up to $20,000. Lessor is not obligated to reimburse Lessee until Lessee provides evidence that

it has incurred qualifying costs. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at lease commencement is

5 percent.

Lessor reimburses Lessee for qualifying expenditures of $20,000 on March 31, 20X1.

In the context of these facts, we will consider two scenarios.

Scenario 1: Lessee is reasonably certain to incur qualifying costs up to the threshold

If Lessee is reasonably certain, as of the commencement date, to incur qualifying costs of at least

$20,000, we believe it is acceptable for Lessee to include a $20,000 lease incentive in its lease

payments at the commencement date. Lessee expects the reimbursement to be paid on March 31,

20X1 and therefore includes a cash inflow in its schedule of future lease payments on that date.

At the commencement date, the lease payments are $230,000 ($50,000 fixed annual payments, totaling

$250,000, minus a lease incentive payable by Lessor of $20,000). The present value of the lease

payments at the commencement date, discounted at Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate, is $196,156.

This present value calculation assumes a cash inflow of $20,000 on March 31, 20X1, and cash outflows

of $50,000 on December 31 of each year during the lease term. Lessee will recognize lease expense of

$46,000 per year ($230,000 ÷ 5), or $11,500 per quarter.

At the commencement date, Lessee records the following journal entry:

Dr. Right-of-use asset $196,156

Cr. Lease liability $196,156

On March 31, 20X1, Lessee records the following journal entry:

Dr. Lease expense $11,500

Lessee accounting 156

Dr. Cash $20,000

Cr. Right-of-use asset $9,048

Cr. Lease liability $22,452

Scenario 2: Lessee is not reasonably certain to incur qualifying costs up to the threshold

Assume the same facts in Scenario 1 above, except that at the commencement date, Lessee is not

reasonably certain to incur qualifying costs of at least $20,000. Therefore, the reimbursement of

qualifying costs is a contingent lease incentive that will be recognized when it becomes payable by

Lessor. Lessee incurs qualifying costs of $20,000 during the quarter ended March 31, 20X1, and Lessor

reimburses Lessee for these costs on March 31, 20X1.

At the commencement date, the lease payments are $250,000 ($50,000 fixed annual payments over

five years). The present value of the lease payments at the commencement date, discounted at

Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate, is $216,474. This present value calculation assumes cash

outflows of $50,000 on December 31 of each year during the lease term. At the commencement date,

Lessee calculates lease expense of $50,000 per year ($250,000 ÷ 5), or $12,500 per quarter.

At the commencement date, Lessee records the following journal entry:

Dr. Right-of-use asset $216,474

Cr. Lease liability $216,474

Method 1

If Lessee chooses to recognize the effect of the lease incentive prospectively, then on March 31, 20X1,

it records the following journal entry:

Dr. Lease expense $12,500

Dr. Cash $20,000

Cr. Right-of-use asset $30,366

Cr. Lease liability $2,134

Each quarter thereafter, Lessee recognizes lease expense of $11,447 [$12,500 – ($20,000 ÷ 19)].

Method 2

If Lessee chooses to recognize a cumulative catch-up adjustment to lease expense so that,

prospectively, periodic lease expense is recognized as if the lease incentive was payable by Lessor

as of the commencement date, then on March 31, 20X1, it records the following journal entry:

Dr. Lease expense $11,500

Dr. Cash $20,000

Cr. Right-of-use asset $29,366

Cr. Lease liability $2,134

Each quarter thereafter, Lessee recognizes lease expense of $11,500.

Lessee accounting 157

5.5 Amortization of leasehold improvements

A lessee capitalizes leasehold improvements as property, plant, and equipment. If the lease neither

transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee nor contains an option to purchase the

underlying asset that the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise, a lessee must amortize leasehold

improvements over the shorter of their useful lives or the remaining term of the lease. If the lease either

transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee or contains a purchase option that the lessee is

reasonably certain to exercise, the leasehold improvements are amortized over their remaining useful

lives. Similarly, leasehold improvements acquired in a business combination must be amortized over their

remaining useful lives or the remaining lease term at the acquisition date, whichever is shorter.

ASC 842-20-35-12

Leasehold improvements shall be amortized over the shorter of the useful life of those leasehold

improvements and the remaining lease term, unless the lease transfers ownership of the underlying

asset to the lessee or the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase the underlying

asset, in which case the lessee shall amortize the leasehold improvements to the end of their useful

life.

ASC 842-20-35-13

Leasehold improvements acquired in a business combination or an acquisition by a not-for-profit entity

shall be amortized over the shorter of the useful life of the assets and the remaining lease term at the

date of acquisition.

5.6 Lessee costs to place the underlying asset in service

A lessee may incur costs with a party other than the lessor to bring the underlying asset to the condition

and location necessary for its intended use. For example, a lessee that leases manufacturing equipment

might hire a third-party shipping company to pick up the equipment from the lessor’s facility and transport

the equipment to the lessee’s facility, where the equipment will be installed. Generally, such costs do not

qualify as initial direct costs, as defined in Section 2.1. However, if the lessee purchased the underlying

asset instead of leasing it, such costs would be capitalized as part of the asset’s initial carrying amount on

the purchaser’s statement of financial position, in accordance with ASC 360.

In a speech at the AICPA’s 2018 Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, staff from the

SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant noted that if costs incurred to place a leased asset into use do not

fall within the scope of other GAAP they would not object to a lessee adopting an accounting policy to

capitalize these costs by analogizing to the guidance in ASC 360, Property, Plant, and Equipment.

A lessee that makes a policy election to analogize to ASC 360 for costs to place a leased asset into use

should apply the policy consistently and disclose it if it is material to the financial statements.

5.7 Impairment of the right-of-use asset

A lessee is required to evaluate the right-of-use asset for impairment using the guidance on the

impairment or disposal of long-lived assets in ASC 360-10-35.

Lessee accounting 158

ASC 842-20-35-9

A lessee shall determine whether a right-of-use asset is impaired and shall recognize any impairment

loss in accordance with Section 360-10-35 on impairment or disposal of long-lived assets.

ASC 842-20-35-10

If a right-of-use asset is impaired in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-9, after the impairment, it

shall be measured at its carrying amount immediately after the impairment less any accumulated

amortization. A lessee shall amortize, in accordance with paragraph 842-20-25-7 (for an operating

lease) or paragraph 842-20-35-7 (for a finance lease), the right-of-use asset from the date of the

impairment to the earlier of the end of the useful life of the right-of-use asset or the end of the lease

term.

Under the guidance in ASC 360-10-35, a long-lived asset or asset group is tested for impairment when a

triggering event occurs that indicates the carrying amount of the asset or asset group might not be

recoverable. A right-of-use asset might be assessed for impairment individually or, if the cash flows

related to the lease are not independent from the cash flows of other assets and liabilities, as part of an

asset group.

Asset group: An asset group is the unit of accounting for a long-lived asset or assets to be held and

used, which represents the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the

cash flows of other groups of assets and liabilities.

ASC 360-10-35-21 includes examples of events that might cause a lessee to reassess whether the

carrying amount of an asset or asset group is recoverable.

ASC 360-10-35-21

A long-lived asset (asset group) shall be tested for recoverability whenever events or changes in

circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable. The following are examples of

such events or changes in circumstances:

a. A significant decrease in the market price of a long-lived asset (asset group)

b. A significant adverse change in the extent or manner in which a long-lived asset (asset group) is

being used or in its physical condition

c. A significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate that could affect the value

of a long-lived asset (asset group), including an adverse action or assessment by a regulator

d. An accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the

acquisition or construction of a long-lived asset (asset group)

Lessee accounting 159

e. A current-period operating or cash flow loss combined with a history of operating or cash flow

losses or a projection or forecast that demonstrates continuing losses associated with the use of a

long-lived asset (asset group)

f. A current expectation that, more likely than not, a long-lived asset (asset group) will be sold or

otherwise disposed of significantly before the end of its previously estimated useful life. The term

more likely than not refers to a level of likelihood that is more than 50 percent.

If a lessee identifies a triggering event, it must evaluate the asset or asset group for impairment by

determining whether (1) the carrying amount of the asset is recoverable, and (2) the carrying amount

exceeds the fair value of the asset. To determine if the carrying amount of the asset is recoverable, the

carrying amount is compared to the undiscounted cash flows expected from the use and eventual

disposal of the asset. If the carrying amount exceeds the expected undiscounted cash flows, then the

carrying amount is compared to the fair value of the asset. If the carrying amount exceeds the fair value,

the impairment charge is equal to the difference between the carrying amount and the fair value.

ASC 360-10-35 contains specific guidance about estimating expected cash flows and the fair value of an

asset, as well as other considerations that are not addressed in this publication.

ASC 360-10-35-17

An impairment loss shall be recognized only if the carrying amount of a long-lived asset (asset group)

is not recoverable and exceeds its fair value. The carrying amount of a long-lived asset (asset group) is

not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use

and eventual disposition of the asset (asset group). That assessment shall be based on the carrying

amount of the asset (asset group) at the date it is tested for recoverability, whether in use (see

paragraph 360-10-35-33) or under development (see paragraph 360-10-35-34). An impairment loss

shall be measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of a long-lived asset (asset group)

exceeds its fair value.

Grant Thornton insights: Undiscounted cash flow measurements for impairment

on an operating lease

At its November 30, 2016 meeting, the FASB discussed several implementation issues associated with

ASC 842, including evaluating the right-of-use asset for impairment under ASC 360. Two questions

raised in the discussion were (1) whether the operating lease liability should be included in the asset

group evaluated for impairment, and (2) whether it would be appropriate for a lessee to exclude the

interest component of the remaining lease payments from its undiscounted cash flows associated with

the first step of its impairment analysis.

There are two acceptable approaches a lessee could take with respect to operating lease liabilities in

the context of its impairment analysis. Operating lease liabilities are characterized as operating

liabilities rather than debt, as discussed in paragraph BC14 of 2016-02. Therefore, a lessee could

include them in the asset group as operating liabilities. Alternatively, a lessee could analogize to the

guidance in ASC 360 that requires an entity to exclude a liability for an asset retirement obligation from

both the asset group and the future cash flows used in the recovery test, and therefore exclude the

Lessee accounting 160

operating lease liability from the asset group. If the lease liability is excluded from the asset group, the

lease payments are also excluded from the future cash outflows used in the analysis.

If the lease liability is included in the asset group, the lessee must then determine whether the interest

component of future lease payments should be excluded from the undiscounted cash flow analysis.

Although the Board reached no conclusions about ASC 842 at the November 2016 meeting, multiple

Board members indicated that they would not object to a lessee adopting an accounting policy to

exclude the interest component of the remaining operating lease payments from the undiscounted cash

flows for purposes of impairment analysis of ROU asset. Alternatively, a lessee should include all of the

remaining lease payments in the undiscounted cash flows used in its impairment analysis, provided

that it includes the operating lease liability in the asset group.

5.7.1 Post-impairment asset amortization – operating lease

Once a right-of-use asset related to an operating lease has been impaired, the asset is amortized on a

straight-line or another systematic basis.

The single lease cost for an operating lease is calculated differently before and after impairment. Before

impairment, the cost of the lease is generally allocated over the remaining lease term on a straight-line

basis, which results in a back end–loaded amortization pattern for the right-of-use asset, assuming level

payments throughout the lease term. After impairment of the right-of-use asset, lease expense is

calculated as the sum of (1) the amortization of the remaining balance of the right-of-use asset on a

straight-line or other rational, systematic basis, and (2) the accretion of the lease liability. The accretion of

the lease liability is the amount that produces a constant periodic discount rate on the remaining lease

liability. In other words, following an impairment, an operating lease is accounted for like a finance lease,

except with a single lease cost rather than separate interest and amortization.

ASC 842-20-25-7

After a right-of-use asset has been impaired in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-9, the single

lease cost described in paragraph 842-20-25-6(a) shall be calculated as the sum of the following:

1. Amortization of the remaining balance of the right-of-use asset after the impairment on a straight-

line basis, unless another systematic basis is more representative of the pattern in which the

lessee expects to consume the remaining economic benefits from its right to use the underlying

asset

2. Accretion of the lease liability, determined for each remaining period during the lease term as the

amount that produces a constant periodic discount rate on the remaining balance of the liability.

5.7.2 Post-impairment asset amortization – finance lease

When the right-of use asset in a finance lease is impaired, the amortization for that asset both before and

after impairment is calculated the same way—that is, on a straight-line or another rational, systematic

basis.

Lessee accounting 161

5.7.3 Example of impairment of a right-of-use asset

Example 5 from ASC 842-20-55 shows how a lessee accounts for an operating lease with a right-of-use

asset that becomes impaired during the lease term.

Example 5—Impairment of a Right-of-Use Asset in an Operating Lease

ASC 842-20-55-48

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease of a nonspecialized asset. Lease payments are $10,000 per year,

payable in arrears. The lease does not transfer ownership of the underlying asset or grant Lessee an

option to purchase the underlying asset. At lease commencement, the remaining economic life of the

underlying asset is 50 years, and the fair value of the underlying asset is $600,000. Lessee does not

incur any initial direct costs as a result of the lease. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 7 percent,

which reflects the fixed rate at which Lessee could borrow the amount of the lease payments in the

same currency, for the same term, and with similar collateral as in the lease at commencement. The

lease is classified as an operating lease.

ASC 842-20-55-49

At the commencement date, Lessee recognizes the lease liability of $70,236 (the present value of the

10 lease payments of $10,000, discounted at the rate of 7 percent). Lessee also recognizes a right-of-

use asset of $70,236 (the initial measurement of the lease liability). Lessee determines the cost of the

lease to be $100,000 (the total lease payments for the lease term). The annual lease expense to be

recognized is therefore $10,000 ($100,000 ÷ 10 years).

ASC 842-20-55-50

At the end of Year 3, when the carrying amount of the lease liability and the right-of-use asset are both

$53,893, Lessee determines that the right-of-use asset is impaired in accordance with Section 360-10-

35 and recognizes an impairment loss of $35,000. The right-of-use asset is part of an asset group that

Lessee tested for recoverability because of a significant adverse change in the business climate that

affects Lessee’s ability to derive benefit from the assets within the asset group. The portion of the total

impairment loss for the asset group allocated to the right-of-use asset in accordance with paragraph

360-10-35-28 is $35,000. After the impairment charge, the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset

at the end of Year 3 is $18,893 ($53,893 – $35,000). Because of the impairment, the total expense

recognized in Year 3 is $45,000 ($10,000 in lease expense + the $35,000 impairment charge).

Beginning in Year 4, and for the remainder of the lease term, the single lease cost recognized by

Lessee in accordance with paragraphs 842-20-25-6(a) and 842-20-25-7 will equal the sum of the

following:

a. Amortization of the right-of-use asset remaining after the impairment ($18,893 ÷ 7 years = $2,699

per year)

b. Accretion of the lease liability. For example, in Year 4, the accretion is $3,773 ($53,893 × 7%) and,

in Year 5, the accretion is $3,337 ($47,665 × 7%).

ASC 842-20-55-51

Consequently, at the end of Year 4, the carrying amount of the lease liability is $47,665 (that is,

calculated as either the present value of the remaining lease payments, discounted at 7 percent, or the

previous balance of $53,893 – $10,000 Year 4 lease payment + the $3,773 accretion of the lease

Lessee accounting 162

liability). The carrying amount of the right-of-use asset is $16,194 (the previous balance of $18,893 –

$2,699 amortization). Lessee measures the lease liability and the right-of-use asset in this manner

throughout the remainder of the lease term.

5.7.4 Lessee decision to abandon right-of-use asset

ASC 842 doesn’t address the accounting if a lessee abandons a right-of-use asset.

Grant Thornton insights: Lessee decision to abandon right-of-use asset

A lessee might decide to abandon a right-of-use asset prior to the end of the lease term for various

reasons. For example, a retailer might decide to close an underperforming store prior to the end of

the lease term and, due to contractual restrictions, may not be permitted to sublease the space. We

believe that it acceptable for a lessee to apply the abandonment guidance in ASC 360-10-35-47

through 35-48 to a right-of-use asset if the lessee decides to abandon the underlying asset. In the

context of a lease, we believe “abandonment” means ceasing to use the underlying asset and lacking

either the intent or the ability to sublease the underlying asset.

On the date a lessee decides to abandon a right-of-use asset, the lessee must first consider whether

an impairment assessment is required under ASC 360 and if so, apply the relevant guidance to

measure and recognize any impairment charge. After applying the impairment guidance, provided the

right-of-use asset has not been entirely written-off, the lessee should shorten that asset’s useful life so

that it extends only up to the abandonment date. Accordingly, the right-of-use asset must be amortized

to its salvage value, which will typically be zero, from the date the entity decides to abandon the asset

to the date the asset is actually abandoned.

There is diversity in practice with respect to the subsequent measurement of an operating lease

following the date the lessee decides to abandon the right-of-use asset. On one hand, the decision to

abandon the right-of-use asset could be viewed as akin to impairment, in which case, the right-of-use

asset is amortized on a straight-line basis from the date the decision is made to abandon the asset to

the date the asset is actually abandoned, and the lease liability continues to be measured based on an

effective interest method over the remaining lease term. Under this approach, straight-line recognition

of lease expense is lost for an operating lease when a lessee decides to abandon the right-of-use

asset.

On the other hand, the guidance in ASC 842 appears to require a shift from straight-line lease expense

recognition for operating leases only if an impairment charge is recognized. Therefore, a straight-line

lease expense recognition pattern should be preserved during the remainder of the lease term until the

right-of-use asset is abandoned. Under this approach, straight-line recognition of lease expense is

retained for an operating lease until the right-of-use asset is abandoned.

We believe that either of these amortization approaches is acceptable.

5.8 Lease modification

When any modification or amendment is made to a lease, a lessee must determine whether the

modification should be treated as a separate contract or as a continuation of the existing contract.

Lessee accounting 163

To be accounted for as a separate contract under ASC 842, a lease modification must (1) grant the

lessee an additional right of use not included in the original lease contract, and (2) increase the lease

payments commensurate with the stand-alone price for the additional right of use. For the second

criterion, the evaluation of the stand-alone price of the additional right of use takes into account any

adjustments necessary for a particular lease, such as incremental costs that were avoided by leasing

from the existing lessor rather than from a new lessor.

ASC 842-10-25-8

An entity shall account for a modification to a contract as a separate contract (that is, separate from the

original contract) when both of the following conditions are present:

a. The modification grants the lessee an additional right of use not included in the original lease (for

example, the right to use an additional asset).

b. The lease payments increase commensurate with the standalone price for the additional right of

use, adjusted for the circumstances of the particular contract. For example, the standalone price

for the lease of one floor of an office building in which the lessee already leases other floors in that

building may be different from the standalone price of a similar floor in a different office building,

because it was not necessary for a lessor to incur costs that it would have incurred for a new

lessee.

5.8.1 Modification accounted for as a separate contract

A modification that is accounted for as a separate contract should be treated as a new lease and initially

measured at the commencement date of the new lease based on the guidance in ASC 842. A

modification treated as a separate lease has no impact on the accounting for the existing lease.

Example 15 from ASC 842-10-55 illustrates how a lessee accounts for a lease modification that is a

separate contract.

Example 15—Modification Accounted for As a Separate Contract

ASC 842-10-55-160

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease for 10,000 square feet of office space. At the beginning of Year 6,

Lessee and Lessor agree to modify the lease for the remaining 5 years to include an additional 10,000

square feet of office space in the same building. The increase in the lease payments is commensurate

with the market rate at the date the modification is agreed for the additional 10,000 square feet of office

space.

ASC 842-10-55-161

Lessee accounts for the modification as a new contract, separate from the original contract. This is

because the modification grants Lessee an additional right of use as compared with the original

contract, and the increase in the lease payments is commensurate with the standalone price of the

additional right of use. Accordingly, from the effective date of the modification, Lessee would have 2

separate contracts, each of which contain a single lease component—the original, unmodified contract

Lessee accounting 164

for 10,000 square feet of office space and the new contract for 10,000 additional square feet of office

space, respectively. Lessee would not make any adjustments to the accounting for the original lease as

a result of this modification.

5.8.2 Modification accounted for as a continuation of the existing contract

A lease modification that does not meet both criteria to be considered a separate contract is accounted

for as a continuation of the existing contract. In those circumstances, a lessee must reassess lease

classification for the modified lease, taking into account all modified terms and conditions and measuring

all inputs, including the discount rate, as of the effective date of the modification. The modification is

effective on the date when it is approved by both the lessee and the lessor. Any other payments made in

connection with the modified lease, such as initial direct costs or lease incentives, should be added to the

right-of-use asset.

Effective Date of the Modification: The date that a lease modification is approved by both the lessee

and the lessor.

ASC 842-10-25-9

If a lease is modified and that modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance

with paragraph 842-10-25-8, the entity shall reassess the classification of the lease in accordance with

paragraph 842-10-25-1 as of the effective date of the modification.

ASC 842-10-25-10

An entity shall account for initial direct costs, lease incentives, and any other payments made to or by

the entity in connection with a modification to a lease in the same manner as those items would be

accounted for in connection with a new lease.

For a modification that is not accounted for as a separate contract, the lessee must reallocate the

remaining consideration in the contract among the lease and nonlease components, and remeasure the

lease liability based on the discount rate as of the effective date of the modification. The adjustment to the

right-of-use asset depends on the terms of the modification. Under the guidance in ASC 842, a

modification that is not accounted for as a new lease fits into one of four broad categories, as follows:

 It fully or partially terminates an existing lease.

 It grants an additional right of use.

 It extends or reduces the term of the existing lease, unless an existing option to extend or terminate

the lease is exercised.

 It changes only the consideration in the contract.

Lessee accounting 165

For a modification that fully or partially terminates a lease, the lessee reduces the carrying amount of the

right-of-use asset on a basis proportionate to the full or partial termination of the lease. Any difference

between the adjustment to the right-of-use asset and the lease liability is recognized as a gain or loss in

the current period.

For example, if a lessee modifies a lease of 10,000 square feet of office space so that it has the right to

use only 5,000 square feet going forward, it could reduce both the right-of-use asset and the lease liability

by 50 percent, with any difference recognized as a gain or loss in earnings. Then, the lessee would

remeasure the lease liability, with the offset recognized as an adjustment to the right-of-use asset.

For any of the categories other than a full or partial termination of a lease, the lease liability is adjusted to

reflect its remeasured amount, with an offset to the right-of-use asset. In paragraph BC175 of ASU 2016-

02, the Board notes that if a lease is not fully or partially terminated, the modification changes only the

cost of the right-of-use asset in the original lease, with no impact on profit or loss. In the same paragraph,

the Board notes that a lease may be modified even if the contractual terms related to the lease

component do not change. For example, a change in the consideration paid for a nonlease component

may change the remaining lease payments, because the lessee must reallocate the amended

consideration in the contract among the lease and nonlease components on the same basis as the

original consideration in the contract was allocated.

Figure 5.3: Subsequent measurement for a modification not accounted for as a separate contract

ASC 842-10-25-11

A lessee shall reallocate the remaining consideration in the contract and remeasure the lease liability

using a discount rate for the lease determined at the effective date of the modification if a contract

modification does any of the following:

a. Grants the lessee an additional right of use not included in the original contract (and that

modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-

Lessee accounting 166

b. Extends or reduces the term of an existing lease (for example, changes the lease term from five to

eight years or vice versa), other than through the exercise of a contractual option to extend or

terminate the lease (as described in paragraph 842-20-35-5)

c. Fully or partially terminates an existing lease (for example, reduces the assets subject to the lease)

d. Changes the consideration in the contract only.

ASC 842-10-25-12

In the case of (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 842-10-25-11 the lessee shall recognize the amount of the

remeasurement of the lease liability for the modified lease as an adjustment to the corresponding right-

of-use asset.

ASC 842-10-25-13

In the case of (c) in paragraph 842-10-25-11 the lessee shall decrease the carrying amount of the

right-of-use asset on a basis proportionate to the full or partial termination of the existing lease. Any

difference between the reduction in the lease liability and the proportionate reduction in the right-of-use

asset shall be recognized as a gain or a loss at the effective date of the modification.

When there is a modification to a finance lease that is not accounted for as a separate contract and the

classification changes from a finance lease to an operating lease, the lessee should first remeasure and

adjust the carrying amounts of the lease liability and right-of-use asset using the applicable guidance in

ASC 842. Next, the lessee should measure the difference between the adjusted carrying amount of the

right-of-use asset and the initial carrying amount that would have been calculated for the right-of-use

asset had the modification been treated as a new lease. The difference between these two amounts

should be treated the same as a prepayment of rent or a lease incentive.

Lease modification – finance lease to operating lease

Lessee leases a machine to be used in its manufacturing facility. The noncancellable term of the lease

is three years, with three one-year renewal options. Lessee is reasonably certain to exercise all three of

the renewal options, so that the lease term is six years. The remaining economic life of the machine is

seven years, and Lessee determines that the lease is classified as a finance lease.

The contract requires fixed payments of $50,000 per year, payable annually in arrears. There are no

lease incentives or initial direct costs associated with the lease. Lessee uses its incremental borrowing

rate of 6 percent to measure the lease liability and the right-of-use asset at lease commencement.

At the beginning of year two, Lessee and Lessor agree to modify the lease, reducing the noncancellable

term from three to two years and adding a one-year renewal option, so that the maximum possible lease

term remains six years. Lessee and Lessor agree to increase the annual payments to $55,000.

As of the modification date, Lessee’s expectation about whether it is reasonably certain to exercise its

renewal options has changed since the commencement date of the lease. Lessee believes it is

reasonably certain to exercise only one of the renewal options, so the remaining lease term as of the

modification date is two years. The remaining economic life of the machine as of the modification date

is six years, and Lessee determines that the modified lease is classified as an operating lease.

Lessee accounting 167

On the modification date, the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset is $196,693, and the carrying

amount of the lease liability is $210,618. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at the modification date

remains 6 percent.

On the modification date, Lessee remeasures the lease liability based on the modified remaining lease

payments, the modified lease term, and its current incremental borrowing rate. The remeasured lease

liability is $100,837.

Therefore, Lessee records the following journal entry to adjust the lease liability on the modification

date:

Dr. Lease liability $109,781

Cr. Right-of-use asset $109,781

Since the modification changed the lease classification from finance to operating, Lessee treats the

difference between the new carrying amount of the right-of-use asset ($86,912) and the carrying

amount that results from applying the initial measurement guidance ($100,837) the same as a lease

incentive. This deemed lease incentive equals $13,925.

At the end of year two, Lessee measures the lease liability at $51,887, which is equal to the present

value of the lease payments not yet paid, discounted using the discount rate established at the

modification date. Lessee also measures the right-of-use asset at $44,924, which is equal to the lease

liability ($51,887) adjusted for the remaining balance of the deemed lease incentive ($6,963).

Lessee recognizes lease expense of $48,038 in year two, which is equal to (a) the sum of the remaining

lease payments as of the modification date of $110,000, minus the deemed lease incentive of $13,925,

divided by (b) the remaining lease term as of the modification date of two years.

ASC 842-10-25-14

If a finance lease is modified and the modified lease is classified as an operating lease, any difference

between the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset after recording the adjustment required by

paragraph 842-10-25-12 or 842-10-25-13 and the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset that would

result from applying the initial operating right-of-use asset measurement guidance in paragraph 842-

20-30-5 to the modified lease shall be accounted for in the same manner as a rent prepayment or a

lease incentive.

Examples 16, 17, 18, and 19 in ASC 842-10-55 illustrate a lessee’s accounting for the four types of

modifications not accounted for as a separate contract, as discussed in ASC 842-10-25-11.

Example 16 below shows how a lessee accounts for a modification that increases the lease term.

Lessee accounting 168

Example 16—Modification That Increases the Lease Term

Case A—No Change in Lease Classification

ASC 842-10-55-162

Lessee and Lessor enter into a 10-year lease for 10,000 square feet of office space in a building with a

remaining economic life of 50 years. Annual payments are $100,000, paid in arrears. Lessee’s

incremental borrowing rate at the commencement date is 6 percent. The lease is classified as an

operating lease. At the beginning of Year 6, Lessee and Lessor agree to modify the lease such that the

total lease term increases from 10 years to 15 years. The annual lease payments increase to $110,000

per year for the remaining 10 years after the modification. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is

7 percent at the date the modification is agreed to by the parties.

ASC 842-10-55-163

At the beginning of Year 6, Lessee’s lease liability and its right-of-use asset both equal $421,236 (that

is, because the lease payments are made annually in arrears and because the lease payments are

even throughout the lease term, the lease liability and right-of-use asset will be equal).

ASC 842-10-55-164

The modification does not grant an additional right of use to the lessee; rather, it changes (modifies) an

attribute of the right to use the 10,000 square feet of office space Lessee already controls. That is, after

the modification, Lessee still controls only a single right of use transferred to Lessee at the original

lease commencement date.

ASC 842-10-55-165

Because the modification does not grant Lessee an additional right of use, the modification cannot be a

separate contract. Therefore, at the effective date of the modification, Lessee reassesses classification

of the lease (which does not change in this Example—see Case B [paragraphs 842-10-55-166 through

55-167] for a change in lease classification) and remeasures the lease liability on the basis of the 10-

year remaining lease term, 10 remaining payments of $110,000, and its incremental borrowing rate at

the effective date of the modification of 7 percent. Consequently, the modified lease liability equals

$772,594. The increase to the lease liability of $351,358 is recorded as an adjustment to the right-of-

use asset (that is, there is no income or loss effect from the modification).

Case B—Change in Lease Classification

ASC 842-10-55-166

Assume the same facts as in Case A (paragraphs 842-10-55-162 through 55-165), except that the

underlying asset is a piece of equipment with a 12-year remaining economic life at the effective date of

the modification. Consequently, when the lessee reassesses classification of the lease in accordance

with paragraph 842-10-25-1 as of the effective date of the modification based on the modified rights

and obligations of the parties, the lessee classifies the modified lease as a finance lease (that is,

because the remaining lease term of 10 years is for a major part of the 12-year remaining economic life

of the equipment).

Lessee accounting 169

ASC 842-10-55-167

Consistent with Case A, at the effective date of the modification, the lessee remeasures its lease

liability based on the 10-year remaining lease term, 10 remaining payments of $110,000, and its

incremental borrowing rate of 7 percent. Consequently, the modified lease liability equals $772,594.

The increase to the lease liability of $351,358 is recorded as an adjustment to the right-of-use asset

(that is, there is no income or loss effect from the modification). However, different from Case A,

beginning on the effective date of the modification, Lessee accounts for the 10-year modified lease

as a finance lease.

Example 17 in ASC 842-10-55 shows how a lessee accounts for a modification that grants an additional

right of use.

Example 17—Modification That Grants an Additional Right of Use

ASC 842-10-55-168

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease for 10,000 square feet of office space. The lease payments are

$100,000 per year, paid in arrears. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at lease commencement is

6 percent. At the beginning of Year 6, Lessee and Lessor agree to modify the contract to include an

additional 10,000 square feet of office space on a different floor of the building for the final 4 years of

the original 10-year lease term for a total annual fixed payment of $150,000 for the 20,000 square feet.

ASC 842-10-55-169

The increase in the lease payments (of $50,000 per year) is at a substantial discount to the market rate

at the date the modification is agreed to for leases substantially similar to that for the new 10,000

square feet of office space that cannot be attributed solely to the circumstances of the contract.

Consequently, Lessee does not account for the modification as a separate contract.

ASC 842-10-55-170

Instead, Lessee accounts for the modified contract, which contains 2 separate lease components—

first, the original 10,000 square feet of office space and, second, the right to use the additional 10,000

square feet of office space for 4 years that commences 1 year after the effective date of the

modification. There are no nonlease components of the modified contract. The total lease payments,

after the modification, are $700,000 (1 payment of $100,000 + 4 payments of $150,000).

ASC 842-10-55-171

Lessee allocates the lease payments in the modified contract to the 2 separate lease components on

a relative standalone price basis, which, in this Example, results in the allocation of $388,889 to the

original space lease and $311,111 to the additional space lease. The allocation is based on the

remaining lease terms of each separate lease component (that is, 5 years for the original 10,000-

square-foot lease and 4 years for the additional 10,000-square-foot lease). The remaining lease cost

for each separate lease component is equal to the total payments, as allocated, which will be

recognized on a straight-line basis over their respective lease terms. Lessee remeasures the lease

Lessee accounting 170

liability for the original space lease as of the effective date of the modification—the lease classification

of which does not change as a result of the modification—on the basis of all of the following:

a. A remaining lease term of 5 years

b. Annual allocated lease payments of $77,778 in Years 6 through 10 (see paragraph 842-10-55-173)

c. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at the effective date of the modification of 7 percent.

ASC 842-10-55-172

The remeasured lease liability for the original space lease equals $318,904. Lessee recognizes the

difference between the carrying amount of the modified lease liability and the carrying amount of the

lease liability immediately before the modification of $102,332 ($421,236 – $318,904) as an adjustment

to the right-of-use asset.

ASC 842-10-55-173

During Year 6, Lessee recognizes lease cost of $77,778. At the end of Year 6, Lessee makes its lease

payment of $100,000, of which $77,778 is allocated to the lease of the original office space and

$22,222 is allocated to the lease of the additional office space as a prepayment of rent. Lessee

allocates the lease payment in this manner to reflect even payments for the even use of the separate

lease components over their respective lease terms.

ASC 842-10-55-174

At the commencement date of the separate lease component for the additional office space, which is

1 year after the effective date of the modification, Lessee measures and recognizes the lease liability

at $241,896 on the basis of all of the following:

a. A lease term of 4 years

b. Four allocated annual payments of $72,222 ([allocated lease payments of $311,111 − $22,222 rent

prepayment] ÷ 4 years)

c. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at the commencement date of the separate lease component

for the additional office space of 7.5 percent.

ASC 842-10-55-175

At the commencement date, the right-of-use asset for the additional office space lease component is

recognized and measured at $264,118 (the sum of the lease liability of $241,896 and the prepaid rent

asset of $22,222).

ASC 842-10-55-176

During Years 7–10, Lessee recognizes lease cost of $77,778 each year for each separate lease

component and allocates each $150,000 annual lease payment of $77,778 to the original office space

lease and $72,222 to the additional office space lease.

Lessee accounting 171

Example 18 in ASC 842-10-55 illustrates two ways that a lessee could account for a modification that

decreases the scope of a lease. As noted in paragraph BC177 of ASU 2016-02, either of these methods

would be acceptable.

Both methods measure and record the modified lease liability at the present value of the remaining lease

payments at the effective date of the modification.

In the first method illustrated in Example 18 (Case A), the right-of-use asset is remeasured based on the

change in the lease liability. The lessee first calculates the percentage change in the lease liability before

and after the modification, and then decreases the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset based on the

percentage change in the lease liability. The difference between the adjustment to the lease liability and

the adjustment to the right-of-use asset is recognized as a gain or loss in current-period earnings.

In the second method illustrated in Example 18 (Case B), the right-of-use asset is remeasured based on

the change in the lessee’s remaining right of use. The lessee first calculates the percentage decrease in

its right of use based on a relevant measure of utility, which in this example, is square feet of office space.

The lessee adjusts both the pre-modification right-of-use asset and the pre-modification lease liability by

the percentage decrease in its right of use. The difference between the adjustment to the right-of-use

asset and the adjustment to the lease liability is recognized as a gain or loss in current-period earnings.

Next, the lessee remeasures the lease liability in accordance with ASC 842-10-25-11 and adjusts the

lease liability accordingly, with a corresponding adjustment to the right-of-use asset.

The two methods illustrated in Example 18 result in different amounts for the modified right-of-use asset

and the gain or loss.

Example 18—Modification That Decreases the Scope of a Lease

ASC 842-10-55-177

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease for 10,000 square feet of office space. The annual lease payment is

initially $100,000, paid in arrears, and increases 5 percent each year during the lease term. Lessee’s

incremental borrowing rate at lease commencement is 6 percent. Lessee does not provide a residual

value guarantee. The lease does not transfer ownership of the office space to Lessee or grant Lessee

an option to purchase the space. The lease is an operating lease for all of the following reasons:

a. The lease term is 10 years, while the office building has a remaining economic life of 40 years.

b. The fair value of the office space is estimated to be significantly in excess of the present value of

the lease payments.

c. The office space is expected to have an alternative use to Lessor at the end of the lease term.

ASC 842-10-55-178

At the beginning of Year 6, Lessee and Lessor agree to modify the original lease for the remaining

5 years to reduce the lease to only 5,000 square feet of the original space and to reduce the annual

lease payment to $68,000. That amount will increase 5 percent each year thereafter of the remaining

lease term.

ASC 842-10-55-179

Lessee accounting 172

The classification of the lease does not change as a result of the modification. It is clear based on the

terms of the modified lease that it is not a finance lease because the modification reduces both the

lease term and the lease payments. Lessee remeasures the lease liability for the modified lease at the

effective date of the modification on the basis of all of the following:

a. A remaining lease term of 5 years

b. Lease payments of $68,000 in the year of modification (Year 6), increasing by 5 percent each year

thereafter

c. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at the effective date of the modification of 7 percent.

ASC 842-10-55-180

The remeasured lease liability equals $306,098.

Case A—Remeasuring the Right-of-Use Asset Based on Change in Lease Liability

ASC 842-10-55-181

The difference between the premodification liability and the modified lease liability is $284,669

($590,767 – $306,098). That difference is 48.2 percent ($284,669 ÷ $590,767) of the premodification

lease liability. The decrease in the lease liability reflects the early termination of the right to use 5,000

square feet of space (50 percent of the original leased space), the change in the lease payments, and

the change in the discount rate.

ASC 842-10-55-182

Lessee decreases the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset to reflect the partial termination of

the lease based on the adjustment to the carrying amount of the lease liability, with any difference

recognized in profit or loss. The premodification right-of-use asset is $514,436. Therefore, at the

effective date of the modification, Lessee reduces the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset by

$247,888 (48.2% × $514,436). Lessee recognizes the difference between the adjustment to the lease

liability and the adjustment to the right-of-use asset ($284,669 – $247,888 = $36,781) as a gain.

Case B—Remeasuring the Right-of-Use Asset Based on the Remaining Right of Use

ASC 842-10-55-183

Lessee determines the proportionate decrease in the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset based

on the remaining right-of-use asset (that is, 5,000 square feet corresponding to 50 percent of the

original right-of-use asset).

ASC 842-10-55-184

Fifty percent of the premodification right-of-use asset is $257,218 (50% x $514,436). Fifty percent of

the premodification lease liability is $295,384 (50% x $590,767). Consequently, Lessee decreases the

carrying amount of the right-of-use asset by $257,218 and the carrying amount of the lease liability by

$295,384. At the effective date of the modification, Lessee recognizes the difference between the

Lessee accounting 173

decrease in the lease liability and the decrease in the right-of-use asset of $38,166 ($295,384 −

$257,218) as a gain.

ASC 842-10-55-185

Lessee recognizes the difference between the remaining lease liability of $295,384 and the modified

lease liability of $306,098 (which equals $10,714) as an adjustment to the right-of-use asset reflecting

the change in the consideration paid for the lease and the revised discount rate.

Example 19 in ASC 842-10-55 shows how a lessee accounts for a modification that changes only the

lease payments.

Example 19—Modification That Changes the Lease Payments Only

ASC 842-10-55-186

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease for 10,000 square feet of office space. The lease payments are

$95,000 in Year 1, paid in arrears, and increase by $1,000 every year thereafter. The original discount

rate for the lease is 6 percent. The lease is an operating lease. At the beginning of Year 6, Lessee and

Lessor agree to modify the original lease for the remaining 5 years to reduce the lease payments by

$7,000 each year (that is, the lease payments will be $93,000 in Year 6 and will continue to increase

by $1,000 every year thereafter). The modification only changes the lease payments and, therefore,

cannot be accounted for as a separate contract. The classification of the lease does not change as a

result of the modification.

ASC 842-10-55-187

Lessee remeasures the lease liability for the modified lease on the basis of all of the following:

a. Remaining lease term of 5 years

b. Payments of $93,000 in Year 6, increasing by $1,000 each year for the remainder of the lease term

c. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at the effective date of the modification of 7 percent.

ASC 842-10-55-188

The remeasured lease liability equals $388,965. Lessee recognizes the difference between the

carrying amount of the modified lease liability and the lease liability immediately before the effective

date of the modification of $40,206 ($429,171 premodification lease liability – $388,965 modified lease

liability) as a corresponding reduction to the right-of-use asset. Therefore, the adjusted right-of-use

asset equals $376,465 as of the effective date of the modification. Lessee calculates its remaining

lease cost as $462,500 (the sum of the total lease payments, as adjusted for the effects of the lease

modification, of $960,000 reduced by the total lease cost recognized in prior periods of $497,500),

which it will recognize on a straight-line basis over the remaining lease term.

ASC 842-10-55-189

Lessee accounting 174

During Year 6, Lessee recognizes lease cost of $92,500 ($462,500 remaining lease cost ÷ 5 years).

As of the end of Year 6, Lessee’s lease liability equals $323,193 (present value of the remaining lease

payments, discounted at 7 percent), and its right-of-use asset equals $311,193 (the balance of the

lease liability – the remaining accrued rent balance of $12,000). Lessee recognizes additional lease

cost of $92,500 each year of the remaining lease term and measures its lease liability and right-of-use

asset in the same manner as at the end of Year 6 each remaining year of the lease term. The following

are the balances of the lease liability and the right-of-use asset at the end of Years 7 through 10 of the

lease.

Lease Liability

Right-of-Use

Asset

Year 7

$ 251,816

$ 241,316

Year 8

$ 174,443

$ 166,443

Year 9

$ 90,654

$ 86,154

Year 10

$ -

5.8.3 Lease modification in connection with refunding of tax-exempt debt

Certain projects to construct a facility that is then leased to a user of the facility are funded by tax-exempt

debt. In these arrangements, the lease may be structured to collateralize the debt, with lease payments

that match the debt payments with respect to amounts and timing. In these situations, if the lessor

refunds the tax-exempt debt resulting in a lease modification, that modification should be accounted for in

the same manner as any other lease modification.

ASC 842-10-55-16

In some situations, tax-exempt debt is issued to finance construction of a facility, such as a plant or

hospital that is transferred to a user of the facility by lease. A lease may serve as collateral for the

guarantee of payments equivalent to those required to service the tax-exempt debt. Payments required

by the terms of the lease are essentially the same, as to both amount and timing, as those required by

the tax-exempt debt. A lease modification resulting from a refunding by the lessor of tax-exempt debt

(including an advance refunding) should be accounted for in the same manner (that is, in accordance

with paragraphs 842-10-25-8 through 25-18) as any other lease modification. For example, if the

perceived economic advantages of the refunding are passed through to the lessee in the form of

reduced lease payments, the lessee should account for the modification in accordance with paragraph

842-10-25-12, while the lessor should account for the modification in accordance with the applicable

guidance in paragraphs 842-10-25-15 through 25-17.

5.9 Remeasurement of the lease

A lessee should remeasure the lease liability and reallocate the consideration in the contract among the

lease and nonlease components when certain events occur. Events that trigger a remeasurement of the

lease payments (and, therefore, the lease liability) include (1) a modification that is not accounted for as a

separate contract, as discussed in Section 5.7.2, (2) the resolution of a contingency associated with a

variable payment that causes it to meet the definition of a lease payment, and (3) a change in either the

lease term, the assessment of whether a lessee is reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase

Lessee accounting 175

the underlying asset, or the amount probable of being owed by the lessee under a residual value

guarantee.

ASC 842-10-35-4

A lessee shall remeasure the lease payments if any of the following occur:

a. The lease is modified, and that modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in

accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-8.

b. A contingency upon which some or all of the variable lease payments that will be paid over the

remainder of the lease term are based is resolved such that those payments now meet the

definition of lease payments. For example, an event occurs that results in variable lease payments

that were linked to the performance or use of the underlying asset becoming fixed payments for the

remainder of the lease term. However, a change in a reference index or a rate upon which some or

all of the variable lease payments in the contract are based does not constitute the resolution of a

contingency subject to (b) (see paragraph 842-10-35-5 for guidance on the remeasurement of

variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate).

c. There is a change in any of the following:

1. The lease term, as described in paragraph 842-10-35-1. A lessee shall determine the revised

lease payments on the basis of the revised lease term.

2. The assessment of whether the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise or not to exercise an

option to purchase the underlying asset, as described in paragraph 842-10-35-1. A lessee shall

determine the revised lease payments to reflect the change in the assessment of the purchase

option.

3. Amounts probable of being owed by the lessee under residual value guarantees. A lessee

shall determine the revised lease payments to reflect the change in amounts probable of being

owed by the lessee under residual value guarantees.

Grant Thornton insights: Reassessment of variable lease payments that depend

on an index or rate

The guidance in ASC 842-10-35-4(b) states that lease payments should be remeasured if a

contingency on which some or all of the variable lease payments are based is resolved, such that the

payments become fixed and meet the definition of lease payments. This paragraph also states that a

lessee should not remeasure lease payments in connection with a change in an index or a rate which

variable payments are based on. This principle is illustrated in Example 25 in ASC 842-10-55-231,

where the guidance specifically states that the lease payments in the example should not be

remeasured for a change in the Consumer Price Index.

Example 25 from ASC 842-10-55 shows how a lessee accounts for variable lease payments that depend

on an index or a rate and for variable lease payments that are linked to performance.

Lessee accounting 176

Example 25—Variable Lease Payments That Depend on an Index or a Rate and Variable

Lease Payments Linked to Performance

Case A—Variable Lease Payments That Depend on an Index or a Rate

ASC 842-10-55-226

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease of a building with annual lease payments of $100,000, payable at

the beginning of each year. The contract specifies that lease payments for each year will increase on

the basis of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding 12 months. The Consumer

Price Index at the commencement date is 125. This Example ignores any initial direct costs. The lease

is classified as an operating lease.

ASC 842-10-55-227

The rate implicit in the lease is not readily determinable. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is

8 percent, which reflects the rate at which Lessee could borrow an amount equal to the lease payment

in the same currency, over a similar term, and with similar collateral as in the lease.

ASC 842-10-55-228

At the commencement date, Lessee makes the lease payment for the first year and measures the

lease liability at $624,689 (the present value of 9 payments of $100,000 discounted at the rate of

8 percent). The right-of-use asset is equal to the lease liability plus the prepaid rent ($724,689).

ASC 842-10-55-229

Lessee prepares financial statements on an annual basis. Lessee determines the cost of the lease to

be $1 million (the total lease payments for the lease term). The annual lease expense to be recognized

is $100,000 ($1 million ÷ 10 years).

ASC 842-10-55-230

At the end of the first year of the lease, the Consumer Price Index is 128. Lessee calculates

the payment for the second year, adjusted to the Consumer Price Index, to be $102,400

($100,000 × 128 ÷ 125).

ASC 842-10-55-231

Because Lessee has not remeasured the lease liability for another reason, Lessee does not make an

adjustment to the lease liability to reflect the Consumer Price Index at the end of the reporting period;

that is, the lease liability continues to reflect annual lease payments of $100,000 (8 remaining annual

payments of $100,000, discounted at the rate of 8 percent is $574,664). However, the Year 2 payment

amount of $102,400 (the $100,000 annual fixed payment + $2,400 variable lease payment) will be

recognized in profit or loss for Year 2 of the lease and classified as cash flow from operations in

Lessee’s statement of cash flows. In its quantitative disclosures, Lessee will include $100,000 of the

$102,400 in its disclosure of operating lease cost and $2,400 in its disclosure of variable lease cost.

Case B—Variable Lease Payments Linked to Performance

Lessee accounting 177

ASC 842-10-55-232

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease of a building with annual lease payments of $100,000, payable at

the beginning of each year. The contract specifies that Lessee also is required to make variable lease

payments each year of the lease, which are determined as 2 percent of Lessee’s sales generated from

the building.

ASC 842-10-55-233

At the commencement date, Lessee measures the lease liability and right-of-use asset at the same

amounts as in Case A (paragraphs 842-10-55-226 through 55-231) because the 2 percent royalty

that will be paid each year to Lessor under the lease is a variable lease payment, which means that

payment is not included in the measurement of the lease liability (or the right-of-use asset) at any point

during the lease.

ASC 842-10-55-234

During the first year of the lease, Lessee generates sales of $1.2 million from the building and,

therefore, recognizes total lease cost of $124,000 ($100,000 + [2% × $1.2 million]). In its quantitative

disclosures, Lessee will include $100,000 of the $124,000 in its disclosure of operating lease cost and

$24,000 in its disclosure of variable lease cost.

5.9.1 Reassessment of lease term or option to purchase

There are four types of events that would cause a lessee to reassess the lease term and whether it is

reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase an underlying asset, which would trigger a

remeasurement of the lease payments:

1. A significant event or change in circumstances occurs that is within the control of the lessee and

directly affects whether the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise an option to either extend the

lease or to purchase the underlying asset, or not to exercise an option to terminate the lease. For

example, a lessee should reassess the lease term for manufacturing equipment, and whether it is

reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase the equipment, if it decides to discontinue

manufacturing the product produced by the equipment. The concept of “within the control of the

lessee” is meant to exclude external events, such as fluctuations in market rates to lease or buy

similar assets.

2. The occurrence of an event specified in the contract obligates the lessee to exercise (or not to

exercise) an option to extend or terminate the lease.

3. A lessee elects to exercise an option that the entity had previously determined it was not reasonably

certain to exercise.

4. A lessee elects not to exercise an option that the entity had previously determined it was reasonably

certain to exercise.

Lessee accounting 178

ASC 842-10-35-1

A lessee shall reassess the lease term or a lessee option to purchase the underlying asset only if and

at the point in time that any of the following occurs:

a. There is a significant event or a significant change in circumstances that is within the control of the

lessee that directly affects whether the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise or not to exercise

an option to extend or terminate the lease or to purchase the underlying asset.

b. There is an event that is written into the contract that obliges the lessee to exercise (or not to

exercise) an option to extend or terminate the lease.

c. The lessee elects to exercise an option even though the entity had previously determined that the

lessee was not reasonably certain to do so.

d. The lessee elects not to exercise an option even though the entity had previously determined that

the lessee was reasonably certain to do so.

ASC 842-10-35-2

See paragraphs 842-10-55-28 through 55-29 for implementation guidance on reassessing the lease

term and lessee options to purchase the underlying asset.

The implementation guidance in ASC 842-10-55-28 provides examples of events or changes in

circumstances that should be considered when determining whether to reassess the lease term or the

likelihood that a lessee will exercise a purchase option. These examples include constructing significant

leasehold improvements that are expected to have significant value to the lessee when the option can be

exercised, making significant modifications to the underlying asset, making business decisions relevant to

the lessee’s ability to exercise or not to exercise a renewal option, or subleasing the underlying asset for

a period beyond the exercise date of a renewal option.

ASC 842-10-55-28

Examples of significant events or significant changes in circumstances that a lessee should consider in

accordance with paragraph 842-10-35-1 include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Constructing significant leasehold improvements that are expected to have significant economic

value for the lessee when the option becomes exercisable

b. Making significant modifications or customizations to the underlying asset

c. Making a business decision that is directly relevant to the lessee’s ability to exercise or not to

exercise an option (for example, extending the lease of a complementary asset or disposing of an

alternative asset)

d. Subleasing the underlying asset for a period beyond the exercise date of the option.

ASC 842-10-55-29

Lessee accounting 179

A change in market-based factors (such as market rates to lease or purchase a comparable asset)

should not, in isolation, trigger reassessment of the lease term or a lessee option to purchase the

underlying asset.

Example 3 from ASC 842-20-55 shows how a lessee accounts for a change in lease term.

Example 3—Initial and Subsequent Measurement by a Lessee and Accounting

for a Change in the Lease Term

Case A—Initial and Subsequent Measurement of the Right-of-Use Asset and the Lease Liability

ASC 842-20-55-22

Lessee enters into a 10-year lease of an asset, with an option to extend for an additional 5 years.

Lease payments are $50,000 per year during the initial term and $55,000 per year during the optional

period, all payable at the beginning of each year. Lessee incurs initial direct costs of $15,000.

ASC 842-20-55-23

At the commencement date, Lessee concludes that it is not reasonably certain to exercise the option to

extend the lease and, therefore, determines the lease term to be 10 years.

ASC 842-20-55-24

The rate implicit in the lease is not readily determinable. Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is

5.87 percent, which reflects the fixed rate at which Lessee could borrow a similar amount in the same

currency, for the same term, and with similar collateral as in the lease at the commencement date.

ASC 842-20-55-25

At the commencement date, Lessee makes the lease payment for the first year, incurs initial direct

costs, and measures the lease liability at the present value of the remaining 9 payments of $50,000,

discounted at the rate of 5.87 percent, which is $342,017. Lessee also measures a right-of-use asset of

$407,017 (the initial measurement of the lease liability plus the initial direct costs and the lease

payment for the first year).

ASC 842-20-55-26

During the first year of the lease, Lessee recognizes lease expense depending on how the lease is

classified. Paragraphs 842-20-55-27 through 55-30 illustrate the lease expense depending on whether

the lease is classified as a finance lease or as an operating lease.

If the Lease Is Classified as a Finance Lease

ASC 842-20-55-27

Lessee depreciates its owned assets on a straight-line basis. Therefore, the right-of-use asset would

be amortized on a straight-line basis over the 10-year lease term. The lease liability is increased to

reflect the Year 1 interest on the lease liability in accordance with the interest method. As such, in

Lessee accounting 180

Year 1 of the lease, Lessee recognizes the amortization expense of $40,702 ($407,017 ÷ 10) and the

interest expense of $20,076 (5.87% × $342,017).

ASC 842-20-55-28

At the end of the first year of the lease, the carrying amount of Lessee’s lease liability is $362,093

($342,017 + $20,076), and the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset is $366,315 ($407,017 –

$40,702).

If the Lease Is Classified as an Operating Lease

ASC 842-20-55-29

Lessee determines the cost of the lease to be $515,000 (sum of the lease payments for the lease term

and initial direct costs incurred by Lessee). The annual lease expense to be recognized is therefore

$51,500 ($515,000 ÷ 10 years).

ASC 842-20-55-30

At the end of the first year of the lease, the carrying amount of Lessee’s lease liability is $362,093

($342,017 + $20,076), and the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset is $375,593 (the carrying

amount of the lease liability plus the remaining initial direct costs, which equal $13,500).

Case B—Accounting for a Change in the Lease Term

ASC 842-20-55-31

At the end of Year 6 of the lease, Lessee makes significant leasehold improvements. Those

improvements are expected to have significant economic value for Lessee at the end of the original

lease term of 10 years. The improvements result in the underlying asset having greater utility to Lessee

than alternative assets that could be leased for a similar amount and that are expected to have

significant economic life beyond the original lease term. Consequently, construction of the leasehold

improvements is deemed a significant event or significant change in circumstances that directly affects

whether Lessee is reasonably certain to exercise the option to extend the lease and triggers a

reassessment of the lease term. Upon reassessing the lease term, at the end of Year 6, Lessee

concludes that it is reasonably certain to exercise the option to extend the lease for five years. Taking

into consideration the extended remaining lease term, Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate at the end

of Year 6 is 7.83 percent. As a result of Lessee’s remeasuring the remaining lease term to nine years,

Lessee also would remeasure any variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate;

however, in this Example, there are no variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate. In

accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-1, Lessee reassesses the lease classification as a result of the

change in the lease term. Assume for purposes of this Example that the reassessment does not

change the classification of the lease from that determined at the commencement date.

ASC 842-20-55-32

At the end of Year 6, before accounting for the change in the lease term, the lease liability is $183,973

(present value of 4 remaining payments of $50,000, discounted at the rate of 5.87 percent). Lessee’s

right-of-use asset is $162,807 if the lease is classified as a finance lease or $189,973 if the lease is

classified as an operating lease (the balance of the remeasured lease liability at the end of Year 6 plus

the remaining initial direct costs of $6,000).

Lessee accounting 181

ASC 842-20-55-33

Lessee remeasures the lease liability, which is now equal to the present value of 4 payments of

$50,000 followed by 5 payments of $55,000, all discounted at the rate of 7.83 percent, which is

$355,189. Lessee increases the lease liability by $171,216, representing the difference between the

remeasured liability and its current carrying amount ($355,189 – $183,973). The corresponding

adjustment is made to the right-of-use asset to reflect the cost of the additional rights.

ASC 842-20-55-34

Following the adjustment, the carrying amount of Lessee’s right-of-use asset is $334,023 if the lease is

a finance lease (that is, $162,807 + $171,216) or $361,189 if the lease is an operating lease (that is,

$189,973 + $171,216).

ASC 842-20-55-35

Lessee then makes the $50,000 lease payment for Year 7, reducing the lease liability to $305,189

($355,189 – $50,000), regardless of how the lease is classified.

ASC 842-20-55-36

Lessee recognizes lease expense in Year 7 as follows, depending on how the lease had been

classified at the commencement date.

If the Lease Is Classified as a Finance Lease at the Commencement Date

ASC 842-20-55-37

Lessee depreciates its owned assets on a straight-line basis. Therefore, the right-of-use asset will be

amortized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The lease liability will be reduced in accordance

with the interest method. As such, in Year 7 (the first year following the remeasurement), Lessee

recognizes amortization expense of $37,114 ($334,023 ÷ 9) and interest expense of $23,896

(7.83% × $305,189).

If the Lease Is Classified as an Operating Lease at the Commencement Date

ASC 842-20-55-38

Lessee determines the remaining cost of the lease as the sum of the following:

a. The total lease payments, as adjusted for the remeasurement, which is the sum of $500,000

(10 payments of $50,000 during the initial lease term) and $275,000 (5 payments of $55,000 during

the term of the lease extension); plus

b. The total initial direct costs attributable to the lease of $15,000; minus

c. The periodic lease cost recognized in prior periods of $309,000.

ASC 842-20-55-39

The amount of the remaining cost of the lease is therefore $481,000 ($775,000 + $15,000 – $309,000).

Consequently, Lessee determines that the annual expense to be recognized throughout the remainder

of the lease term is $53,444 ($481,000 ÷ the remaining lease term of 9 years).

Lessee accounting 182

5.9.2 Recognizing the remeasurement

When changes to the lease payments cause the lessee to remeasure the lease liability, the offset to the

lease liability adjustment should be an adjustment to the right-of-use asset, and not to profit or loss. An

exception is when the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset is reduced to zero, in which case, any

remaining amount of the adjustment would be recognized in profit or loss. When a lessee remeasures the

lease payments, it must also reallocate the consideration in the contract.

ASC 842-20-35-4

After the commencement date, a lessee shall remeasure the lease liability to reflect changes to the

lease payments as described in paragraphs 842-10-35-4 through 35-5. A lessee shall recognize the

amount of the remeasurement of the lease liability as an adjustment to the right-of-use asset. However,

if the carrying amount of the right-of-use asset is reduced to zero, a lessee shall recognize any

remaining amount of the remeasurement in profit or loss.

ASC 842-20-35-5

If there is a remeasurement of the lease liability in accordance with paragraph 842-20-35-4, the lessee

shall update the discount rate for the lease at the date of remeasurement on the basis of the remaining

lease term and the remaining lease payments unless the remeasurement of the lease liability is the

result of one of the following:

a. A change in the lease term or the assessment of whether the lessee will exercise an option to

purchase the underlying asset and the discount rate for the lease already reflects that the lessee

has an option to extend or terminate the lease or to purchase the underlying asset.

b. A change in amounts probable of being owed by the lessee under a residual value guarantee (see

paragraph 842-10-35-4(c)(3)).

c. A change in the lease payments resulting from the resolution of a contingency upon which some or

all of the variable lease payments that will be paid over the remainder of the lease term are based

(see paragraph 842-10-35-4(b)).

In addition to updating other inputs to the measurement of the lease liability on remeasurement, the

lessee should update the index or rate used to measure any variable payments included in lease

payments to reflect the index or rate at the remeasurement date. Otherwise, absent a remeasurement

event, a lessee should continue to use the index or rate from the commencement of the lease to measure

the lease liability throughout the lease term.

ASC 842-10-35-5

When one or more of the events described in paragraph 842-10-35-4(a) or (c) occur or when a

contingency unrelated to a change in a reference index or rate under paragraph 842-10-34(b) is

resolved, variable lease payments that depend on an index or a rate shall be remeasured using the

index or rate as of the date the reassessment is required.

Lessee accounting 183

5.10 Lease termination

When a lease is terminated before the end of the lease term, the lessee should account for the

termination by removing the right-of-use asset and the lease liability from the statement of financial

position and recording the difference to profit or loss.

ASC 842-20-40-1

A termination of a lease before the expiration of the lease term shall be accounted for by the lessee by

removing the right-of-use asset and the lease liability, with profit or loss recognized for the difference.

The definition of a lease termination in ASC 842-20-40-1 excludes a termination caused when a lessee

purchases an underlying asset. This termination is considered an integral part of the purchase of the

underlying asset. When the lessee purchases the underlying asset, any difference between the purchase

price of the asset and the carrying amount of the lease liability is recorded as an adjustment to the

carrying amount of the asset. This guidance does not apply to assets acquired in a business combination,

which are accounted for under ASC 805, Business Combinations.

ASC 842-20-40-2

The termination of a lease that results from the purchase of an underlying asset by the lessee is not the

type of termination of a lease contemplated by paragraph 842-20-40-1 but, rather, is an integral part of

the purchase of the underlying asset. If the lessee purchases the underlying asset, any difference

between the purchase price and the carrying amount of the lease liability immediately before the

purchase shall be recorded by the lessee as an adjustment of the carrying amount of the asset.

However, this paragraph does not apply to underlying assets acquired in a business combination,

which are initially measured at fair value in accordance with paragraph 805-20-30-1.

Lessee terminates lease through purchase of underlying asset

Lessee and Lessor agree that Lessee will purchase a piece of equipment it is leasing, effectively

terminating the lease. A purchase option for the underlying asset was not previously included in the

lease. At the time of the purchase, Lessee has recorded a right-of-use asset of $105,000 and a lease

liability of $100,000. The purchase price of the asset is $80,000.

Lessee records the difference between the lease liability of $100,000 and the purchase price of the

asset of $80,000 as a $20,000 reduction in the carrying amount of the asset. The resulting carrying

amount of the asset is $85,000, which is equal to the right-of-use asset carrying amount immediately

preceding the purchase of $105,000, less the $20,000 reduction.

Lessee records the following journal entries to reflect its purchase of the underlying asset:

Dr. Lease liability $100,000

Dr. Equipment $ 85,000

Lessee accounting 184

Cr. Right-of-use asset $105,000

Cr. Cash $ 80,000

5.11 Leases denominated in a foreign currency

A lease liability is a monetary liability because it represents an obligation to pay an amount that can be

determined without referring to future prices of specific goods and services. Under the guidance in ASC

830, Foreign Currency Matters, the lease liability, as a monetary liability, should be remeasured each

period using the exchange rate at the end of each reporting period. In contrast, a right-of-use asset is a

nonmonetary asset. A nonmonetary asset is not impacted by subsequent changes to the exchange rate,

and is measured based on the exchange rate in effect at the date the asset is initially recognized, referred

to as the historical rate. Therefore, entities with leases denominated in a foreign currency should

remeasure the lease liability using the current exchange rate and remeasure the right-of-use asset using

the historical exchange rate each period.

Monetary Liability: An obligation to pay a sum of money the amount of which is fixed or determinable

without reference to future prices of specific goods and services.

Nonmonetary Assets and Liabilities: Nonmonetary assets and liabilities are assets and liabilities other

than monetary ones. Examples are inventories; investments in common stocks; property, plant, and

equipment; and liabilities for rent collected in advance.

ASC 842-20-55-10

The right-of-use asset is a nonmonetary asset while the lease liability is a monetary liability. Therefore,

in accordance with Subtopic 830-10 on foreign currency matters, when accounting for a lease that is

denominated in a foreign currency, if remeasurement into the lessee’s functional currency is required,

the lease liability is remeasured using the current exchange rate, while the right-of-use asset is

remeasured using the exchange rate as of the commencement date.

5.11.1 Translation of periodic lease cost

The periodic lease cost of an operating lease is composed of two elements, even though it is recorded as

a single cost:

 The amortization of the right-of-use asset, which is a nonmonetary asset, and

 Interest expense associated with the lease liability, which is a monetary liability.

Therefore, the lessee should use a blended rate consisting of the historical rate applied to amortize the

right-of-use asset and a weighted-average exchange rate for the period applied to the interest expense

for the lease liability.

Lessee accounting 185

Accounting for a foreign-currency-denominated operating lease

Lessee agrees to lease a piece of equipment from Lessor for five years. The lease is classified as an

operating lease, commences on January 1, 20X1, and requires annual payments of €100, payable in

arrears. Lessee’s functional currency is the U.S. dollar, and its incremental borrowing rate on January 1,

20X1 is 5 percent. The exchange rates on January 1 and December 31, 20X1 are €0.83:US$1.00 and

€0.87:US$1.00, respectively.

The following table summarizes Lessee’s measurement of the right-of-use asset and lease liability

during year one, denominated in euros.

Date

ROU

asset

amort.

ROU

asset

balance

Payment

Principal

Interest

Lease

liability

1/1/X1

433

12/31/X1

355

100

355

On January 1, 20X1, Lessee records the following journal entry to recognize the right-of-use asset and

lease liability, denominated in U.S. dollars. Both the right-of-use asset and the lease liability are

translated at the spot exchange rate (€0.83:US$1.00) on the commencement date of the lease.

Dr. Right-of-use asset $522

Cr. Lease liability $522

Although an operating lease has, pursuant to ASC 842-20-25-6, “a single lease cost,” this amount can

be separated into amortization of the right-of-use asset and interest expense incurred on the lease

liability. Amortization of the right-of-use asset is translated at the lease commencement-date exchange

rate, and interest expense is translated at the average exchange rate for the period, which in this

example equals the average of the exchange rates at January 1 and December 31, 20X1, or

€0.85:US$1.00.

Amortization

(€)

Rate

Amortization

(US$)

Interest

(€)

Rate

Interest

(US$)

Lease

expense

€78

0.83

$94

€22

0.85

$26

$120

On December 31, 20X1, Lessee records the following journal entry to recognize the adjustment to the

right-of-use asset and lease liability, the euro-denominated cash lease payment for year one, as well as

lease expense and a transaction gain associated with the remeasurement of the lease liability at the

spot exchange rate on December 31, 20X1.

Dr. Lease liability $114

Cr. Right-of-use asset $94

Dr. Lease expense $120

Lessee accounting 186

Cr. Cash $115

Cr. Transaction gain $25

5.11.2 Modification or remeasurement of a foreign-currency-denominated lease

ASC 842 does not address the application of the modification and remeasurement guidance to a lease

denominated in a foreign currency. Practitioners have raised questions about how a lessee should

remeasure the right-of-use asset associated with a foreign-currency-denominated lease when the lease is

modified or remeasured. See Sections 5.7 and 5.8 for information about a lessee’s accounting for lease

modifications and remeasurements, respectively.

Based on discussions with the SEC staff, we believe that there are two acceptable approaches for

remeasuring the right-of-use asset associated with a lease denominated in a foreign currency upon

modification or remeasurement, and that a lessee should elect one of these two approaches as an

accounting policy.

 Remeasure the entire right-of-use asset at the current exchange rate: Under this approach, a lessee

remeasures the right-of-use asset based on the current exchange rate as of the remeasurement date.

This approach applies to (1) modifications that are not accounted for as separate contracts and

(2) remeasurements triggered by a change in either the lease term or the assessment of whether a

lessee is reasonably certain to exercise an option to purchase the underlying asset. Applying this

approach generates a foreign-exchange gain or loss upon remeasuring the right-of-use asset at the

current exchange rate.

 Measure only the incremental portion of the right-of-asset at the current exchange rate: Under this

approach, a lessee applies a “layering” approach to the right-of-use asset. The layer consisting of the

right-of-use asset immediately prior to the modification or remeasurement event is still measured in

the functional currency using the historical (lease commencement date) exchange rate. The layer

consisting of the incremental right-of-use asset recognized upon the modification or remeasurement

event is measured in the functional currency using the current exchange rate. In subsequent periods,

the layers continue to be measured in the functional currency based on their respective historical

exchange rates. Applying this approach does not generate a foreign-exchange gain or loss with

respect to the right-of-use asset.

Remeasuring the right-of-use asset in a foreign-currency-denominated lease

Lessee agrees to lease a piece of equipment from Lessor for five years. The lease commences on

January 1, 20X1 and requires annual payments of €100, payable in arrears. Lessee’s functional

currency is the U.S. dollar, and its incremental borrowing rate on January 1, 20X1 is 5 percent.

Lessee and Lessor modify the lease on June 30, 20X2 in a manner that does not require accounting for

the modified lease as a separate contract. Specifically, Lessee and Lessor agree to extend the lease

term by one year, and to increase the annual lease payments from €100 to €110 for the remainder of

the lease term. The exchange rates on January 1 and December 31, 20X1 are €0.83:US$1.00 and

€0.87:US$1.00, respectively. The exchange rate on June 30, 20X2 is €0.95:US$1.00.

Immediately prior to the modification the carrying amounts of Lessee’s right-of-use asset and lease

liability are €314 and €364, respectively.

Lessee accounting 187

Assuming that Lessee’s incremental borrowing rate remains 5 percent at June 30, 20X2, the

remeasured euro-denominated lease liability at June 30, 20X2 is €487, requiring a credit to the lease

liability of €123. Therefore, the right-of-use asset is debited by €123, resulting in a new carrying amount

of €437.

Lessee’s subsequent measurement of the right-of-use asset in its functional currency on the

modification date, based on the two approaches described in this section, is as follows.

Remeasure the entire right-of use asset at the current exchange rate

The right-of-use asset of €437 is measured in Lessee’s functional currency at the current exchange

rate of €0.95:US$1.00, which equals $460. The lease liability of €487 is also measured at the current

exchange rate, which yields a carrying amount of US$513. The transaction loss is equal to the

difference between the functional currency amounts of the right-of-use asset immediately prior to the

modification based on the historical exchange rate (€0.83:US$1.00) and the current exchange rate

(€0.95:US$1.00). In other words, the transaction loss is equal to (€314 ÷ 0.83) – (€314 ÷ 0.95), or

US$48.

The remeasurement journal entry is as follows:

Dr. Right-of-use asset $82 [$460 – (€314 ÷ 0.95) – $48]

Dr. Transaction loss $48

Cr. Lease liability $130 [€123 ÷ 0.95]

Measure only the incremental portion of the right-of-use asset at the current exchange rate

The right-of-use asset of €437 consists of two layers. Layer one is the pre-modification balance of €314,

and layer two is the incremental balance associated with the modification of €123. Lessee measures

layer one at the historical exchange rate of €0.83:US$1.00, and layer two at the current exchange rate

of €0.95:US$1.00. In Lessee’s functional currency, layer one is equal to $378, and layer two is equal to

$130. The functional currency right-of-use asset balance at June 30, 20X2 only requires an adjustment

for the incremental amount added as a result of the modification, or layer two, of $130.

The remeasurement journal entry is as follows:

Dr. Right-of-use asset $130

Cr. Lease liability $130

5.12 Maintenance deposits

Some lease agreements require the lessee to fund the repairs and maintenance of the leased asset for

the duration of the lease. Some of these leases require lessees to deposit funds to cover future repairs

and maintenance costs, which might be referred to as maintenance reserves or supplemental rent.

Lessors are then required to reimburse the lessee’s costs for required maintenance activities paid for with

the deposit when these activities are performed.

Sometimes excess amounts remain on deposit with the lessor at the end of the lease term because the

total maintenance costs were less than the deposit required in the agreement. Depending on the terms in

the lease agreement, the lessor may be entitled to keep the excess amount or may be required to return it

to the lessee.

Lessee accounting 188

A lessee must assess whether it is probable that it will recover the amount on deposit by performing

maintenance activities. In determining whether recovery is probable, a lessee should determine if the

event is likely to occur using the definition of “probable” in ASC 450, Contingencies.

At lease commencement, a lessee accounts for a maintenance deposit paid to a lessor that will be

refunded when the lessee performs specified maintenance activities as a deposit asset, provided that it is

probable the deposit will be used to reimburse the costs of maintenance activities paid for by the lessee.

If the lessee determines that it is not probable that the deposit will be refunded, it recognizes these

deposits as variable lease expense. Regardless of the probability that the deposit will be refunded, the

lessee should record the costs as expense, or capitalize them in accordance with its accounting policy,

when the underlying maintenance is performed.

If the lessee makes a payment to a lessor that is not “substantively and contractually related” to

maintaining the leased asset, the guidance relating to contractual maintenance deposits does not apply.

ASC 842-20-55-4

Under certain leases (for example, certain equipment leases), a lessee is legally or contractually

responsible for repair and maintenance of the underlying asset throughout the lease term. Additionally,

certain lease agreements include provisions requiring the lessee to make deposits to the lessor to

financially protect the lessor in the event the lessee does not properly maintain the underlying asset.

Lease agreements often refer to these deposits as maintenance reserves or supplemental rent.

However, the lessor is required to reimburse the deposits to the lessee on the completion of

maintenance activities that the lessee is contractually required to perform under the lease agreement.

ASC 842-20-55-5

Under a typical arrangement, maintenance deposits are calculated on the basis of a performance

measure, such as hours of use of the underlying asset, and are contractually required under the terms

of the lease agreement to be used to reimburse the lessee for required maintenance of the underlying

asset on the completion of that maintenance. The lessor is contractually required to reimburse the

lessee for the maintenance costs paid by the lessee, to the extent of the amounts on deposit.

ASC 842-20-55-6

In some cases, the total cost of cumulative maintenance events over the term of the lease is less than

the cumulative deposits, which results in excess amounts on deposit at the expiration of the lease. In

those cases, some lease agreements provide that the lessor is entitled to retain such excess amounts,

whereas other agreements specifically provide that, at the expiration of the lease agreement, such

excess amounts are returned to the lessee (refundable maintenance deposit).

ASC 842-20-55-7

The guidance in paragraphs 842-20-55-8 through 55-9 does not apply to payments to a lessor that are

not substantively and contractually related to maintenance of the leased asset. If at the commencement

date a lessee determines that it is less than probable that the total amount of payments will be returned

to the lessee as a reimbursement for maintenance activities, the lessee should consider that when

determining the portion of each payment that is not addressed by the guidance in paragraphs 842-20-

55-8 through 55-9.

ASC 842-20-55-8

Lessee accounting 189

Maintenance deposits paid by a lessee under an arrangement accounted for as a lease that are

refunded only if the lessee performs specified maintenance activities should be accounted for as a

deposit asset.

ASC 842-20-55-9

A lessee should evaluate whether it is probable that an amount on deposit recognized under

paragraph 842-20-55-8 will be returned to reimburse the costs of the maintenance activities incurred

by the lessee. When an amount on deposit is less than probable of being returned, it should be

recognized in the same manner as variable lease expense. When the underlying maintenance is

performed, the maintenance costs should be expensed or capitalized in accordance with the lessee’s

maintenance accounting policy.

Lessor accounting 190

6. Lessor accounting

The lessor accounting model under ASC 842 is based on the rights and obligations of the lessor in the

lease contract. A lessor classifies a lease at commencement as one of the following types of lease:

 A sales-type lease

 A direct financing lease

 An operating lease

The accounting for each type of lease reflects a different set of rights and obligations. A sales-type lease

has characteristics of a sale contract, and therefore the lessor derecognizes the underlying asset,

recognizes profit or loss on the “sale,” and recognizes a financial asset for the consideration receivable. A

direct financing lease has characteristics of a secured lending arrangement, whereby the lessor takes on

credit risk, and therefore derecognizes the underlying asset and recognizes a financial asset on which it

earns interest income. In an operating lease, the lessor retains substantial exposure to changes in the

underlying asset’s value, unlike a sale or secured lending arrangement. Therefore, in an operating lease,

the lessor does not derecognize the underlying asset, and recognizes income associated with providing

the lessee the right to control the use of the asset ratably over the lease term.

The table in Figure 6.1 summarizes some of the key accounting concepts for a lessor in sales-type, direct

financing, and operating leases.

Figure 6.1: Summary of lessor accounting

Sales-type lease

Direct financing lease

Operating lease

Derecognize leased

asset?

Yes

Record net investment

in the lease?

Yes

lease receivable +

unguaranteed residual

value

Yes

lease receivable +

unguaranteed residual

value – any deferred

selling profit

Defer initial direct

costs?

Depends

Yes

Lease income

recognition pattern

Gain or loss recognized

up front, interest

method applied

prospectively

Loss recognized up

front, interest method

applied prospectively

Straight-line (or

systematic and rational

basis)

Lessor accounting 191

Variable payment

recognition

As income in profit or loss in the period when the changes in facts and

circumstances occur that trigger the variable lease payments

At the crossroads: Lessor accounting model

As discussed in paragraph BC91 and BC92 of ASU 2016-02, the Board decided not to undertake a

wholesale revision of the lessor accounting model under legacy GAAP. Certain changes to the

definition of a lease under ASC 842 will impact lessors as well as lessees, and other changes to

the lessor model are intended to align it with the revenue model in ASC 606. This alignment was

necessary because leasing is a revenue-generating activity for lessors, and ASC 606 supersedes

much of the legacy GAAP that the legacy lessor accounting model was based on.

6.1 Sales-type leases

A sales-type lease is a lease that meets one of the five classification criteria outlined in Section 4.1. This

type of lease has characteristics of a sale, as the lessee effectively obtains control of the underlying

asset. As a result, the lessor derecognizes the underlying asset, recognizes profit or loss as if it were

selling the asset, and recognizes a net investment in the lease that includes a lease receivable

representing the lessor’s right to receive lease payments over the lease term. The lease payments

reflected in the net investment in the lease include only those payments that meet the definition of “lease

payments,” as discussed in Section 1.4. The lessor recognizes interest income on the net investment in

the lease over the lease term, calculated using the rate implicit in the lease, as discussed in Section

1.8.1. At the end of the lease, the lessor reclassifies the remaining net investment in the lease, which

equals the asset’s expected residual value, to the appropriate asset category and resumes accounting for

it under the applicable guidance, including recognizing depreciation and assessing the asset for

impairment.

6.1.1 Initial recognition and measurement

On the commencement date of the lease (as defined in Section 1.1), the lessor in a sales-type lease must

 Derecognize the underlying asset

 Recognize

 The net investment in the lease

 Selling profit or selling loss

 Initial direct costs either as an expense, if the fair value of the underlying asset differs from its

carrying amount at commencement, or as a component of the lease’s net investment, if the fair value

of the underlying asset is the same as its carrying amount at commencement

ASC 842-30-25-1

At the commencement date, a lessor shall recognize each of the following and derecognize the

underlying asset in accordance with paragraph 842-30-40-1:

Lessor accounting 192

a. A net investment in the lease, measured in accordance with paragraph 842-30-30-1

b. Selling profit or selling loss arising from the lease

c. Initial direct costs as an expense if, at the commencement date, the fair value of the underlying

asset is different from its carrying amount. If the fair value of the underlying asset equals its

carrying amount, initial direct costs (see paragraphs 842-10-30-9 through 30-10) are deferred at

the commencement date and included in the measurement of the net investment in the lease. The

rate implicit in the lease is defined in such a way that those initial direct costs eligible for deferral

are included automatically in the net investment in the lease; there is no need to add them

separately.

Derecognition of the leased asset

At the commencement date of a sales-type lease, the lessor first derecognizes the carrying amount of the

underlying asset, as if it had sold the asset.

If the collectibility of lease payments is not probable at the commencement date, the lessor cannot

derecognize the asset. Instead, any lease payments received are recognized as a deposit liability until

collectibility is probable. (Refer to Section 4.2.2 for more information about assessing collectibility.)

According to ASC 842-30-25-6, a lessor does not subsequently reassess collectibility if collectibility of

the lease payments is considered probable at lease commencement. Any subsequent changes to the

lessee’s credit risk are evaluated under the guidance for impairment of the net investment in the lease, as

discussed in Section 6.8.

ASC 842-30-40-1

At the commencement date, a lessor shall derecognize the carrying amount of the underlying asset (if

previously recognized) unless the lease is a sales-type lease and collectibility of the lease payments is

not probable (see paragraph 842-30-25-3).

Net investment in the lease

At the commencement date of a sales-type lease, the lessor measures and recognizes the net investment

in the lease. The net investment in the lease consists of the following components:

 The lease receivable, measured at the present value and discounted using the rate implicit in the

lease, comprising:

 Lease payments not yet received by the lessor

 The amount the lessor expects to receive from a residual value guarantee from the lessee or a

third party

 The present value of the unguaranteed residual asset, discounted using the rate implicit in the lease.

The unguaranteed residual asset represents the amount the lessor expects to derive from the

underlying asset after the lease expires that is not guaranteed by the lessee or a third party. When

the underlying asset is land, the residual value of the land should not exceed the land’s fair value at

the commencement date.

Lessor accounting 193

While the lessor is not required to present these components separately in the financial statements, they

must be disclosed separately in the notes.

Lease Receivable: A lessor’s right to receive lease payments arising from a sales-type lease or a direct

financing lease plus any amount that a lessor expects to derive from the underlying asset following the

end of the lease term to the extent that it is guaranteed by the lessee or any other third party unrelated to

the lessor, measured on a discounted basis.

ASC 842-30-30-1

At the commencement date, for a sales-type lease, a lessor shall measure the net investment in the

lease to include both of the following:

a. The lease receivable, which is measured at the present value, discounted using the rate implicit in

the lease, of:

1. The lease payments (as described in paragraph 842-10-30-5) not yet received by the lessor

2. The amount the lessor expects to derive from the underlying asset following the end of the

lease term that is guaranteed by the lessee or any other third party unrelated to the lessor

b. The unguaranteed residual asset at the present value of the amount the lessor expects to derive

from the underlying asset following the end of the lease term that is not guaranteed by the lessee

or any other third party unrelated to the lessor, discounted using the rate implicit in the lease.

Grant Thornton insights: Residual value in long-term land lease

For sales-type and direct financing leases, a lessor is required to include the expected residual value of

the underlying asset at the end of the lease term in its initial measurement of the net investment in the

lease. Unlike equipment, the expected residual value of land might be greater than its fair value at the

lease commencement date.

It is our view that a lessor should cap its expected residual value for land at the land’s fair value on the

lease commencement date. This policy is consistent with a prior FASB staff view on FASB Statement

13, Accounting for Leases. Since the FASB’s objective in ASC 842 is to substantially retain the model

for lessor accounting used in previous GAAP, we believe this interpretation is still appropriate.

Initial direct costs

Initial direct costs are the direct, incremental costs of obtaining a lease, as defined in Section 1.2. The

accounting for initial direct costs in a sales-type lease depends on the relationship of the fair value of the

asset to its carrying amount. If the fair value of the underlying asset is different than its carrying amount,

the initial direct costs are expensed as incurred. However, if the carrying amount and the fair value of the

Lessor accounting 194

underlying asset are equal in a sales-type lease, the lessor defers the initial direct costs of the lease and

recognizes them over the lease term. Initial direct costs are automatically included in the measurement of

the lease, based on how the rate implicit in the lease is defined. Therefore, deferred initial direct costs are

reflected in the net investment in the lease. For further discussion about the relationship between initial

direct costs and the rate implicit in the lease, please refer to Section 1.8.1

Selling profit or loss

At the commencement date, the lessor in a sales-type lease recognizes selling profit or selling loss in the

statement of comprehensive income. Selling profit or loss is equal to the difference between (1) the lower

of the fair value of the underlying asset or the sum of the lease receivable and any lease payments

prepaid by the lessee, and (2) the carrying amount of the underlying asset net of any unguaranteed

residual asset, minus any deferred initial direct costs of the lessor. Initial direct costs that are eligible for

deferral in a sales-type lease are automatically deferred based on how the rate implicit in the lease is

calculated, meaning that the lease receivable reflects the deferred initial direct costs. Therefore,

computing the selling profit or loss without subtracting the deferred initial direct costs would overstate the

selling profit or loss, as discussed in paragraph BC302 of ASU 2016-02.

The selling profit or loss can be presented either gross or net, based on the lessor’s business model. A

lessor that uses leasing as an alternative to selling goods to customers should present its selling profit or

loss on a gross basis, meaning that it would recognize revenue and cost of goods sold for the leasing

transaction. A lessor that presents its selling profit or loss on a gross basis recognizes revenue as the

lesser of (1) the fair value of the underlying asset at commencement date or (2) the sum of the lease

receivable and any lease payments prepaid by the lessee. Cost of goods sold equals the carrying amount

of the underlying asset at the commencement date less the unguaranteed residual asset.

On the other hand, a lessor that uses leasing as a means of providing financing should present selling

profit or loss as a net amount in a single line item. Refer to Section 10.2.2 for the guidance and a further

discussion of a lessor’s presentation in the statement of comprehensive income.

Selling Profit or Selling Loss: At the commencement date, selling profit or selling loss equals:

a. The fair value of the underlying asset or the sum of (1) the lease receivable and (2) any lease

payments prepaid by the lessee, if lower; minus

b. The carrying amount of the underlying asset net of any unguaranteed residual asset; minus

c. Any deferred initial direct costs of the lessor.

6.1.2 Subsequent recognition and measurement

In each reporting period during the term of a sales-type lease, a lessor must recognize

 Interest income on the net investment in the lease

 Variable lease payments that are not included in the net investment in the lease as income if the

changes that trigger the variable payments have occurred during the reporting period

 Impairment of the net investment in the lease

Lessor accounting 195

Interest income is calculated by multiplying the rate implicit in the lease by the balance of the net

investment in the lease at the beginning of the reporting period. In other words, the net investment in the

lease is subsequently accreted using the interest method, so that the adjustment produces a constant

periodic interest rate equal to the rate implicit in the lease.

Variable lease payments that are not included in the net investment in the lease are recognized when the

changes that trigger the variable payments occur. For example, variable lease payments that are based

on the lessee’s sales during a reporting period are recognized by the lessor in that reporting period’s

income based on the lessee’s actual sales during that reporting period.

See Section 6.8 for information about assessing the net investment in the lease for impairment.

ASC 842-30-25-2

After the commencement date, a lessor shall recognize all of the following:

a. Interest income on the net investment in the lease, measured in accordance with paragraph 842-

30-35-1(a).

b. Variable lease payments that are not included in the net investment in the lease as income in profit

or loss in the period when the changes in facts and circumstances on which the variable lease

payments are based occur.

c. Impairment of the net investment in the lease (as described in paragraph 842-30-35-3).

Subsequent measurement of net investment in a lease

The net investment in the lease is subsequently measured by (1) increasing the carrying amount for

interest income recognized during the period, and (2) reducing the carrying amount for lease payments

received during the period, except for variable payments that were excluded from lease payments and

were in turn excluded from the initial measurement of the net investment in the lease). The net investment

in the lease is not remeasured unless the lease is modified and the modification does not qualify as a

separate contract. See Section 6.9 for discussion of lease modifications.

ASC 842-30-35-1

After the commencement date, a lessor shall measure the net investment in the lease by doing both of

the following:

a. Increasing the carrying amount to reflect the interest income on the net investment in the lease. A

lessor shall determine the interest income on the net investment in the lease in each period during

the lease term as the amount that produces a constant periodic discount rate on the remaining

balance of the net investment in the lease.

b. Reducing the carrying amount to reflect the lease payments collected during the period.

ASC 842-30-35-2

Lessor accounting 196

After the commencement date, a lessor shall not remeasure the net investment in the lease unless the

lease is modified and that modification is not accounted for as a separate contract in accordance with

paragraph 842-10-25-8.

Sales-type lease with fixed payments

Lessor and Lessee enter into a five-year equipment lease with annual payments of $12,000 payable in

arrears. Lessee provides a residual value guarantee of $15,000. Lessor concludes that collectibility of

both the annual payments and any residual value guarantee is probable. The equipment has a ten-year

remaining economic life, a net carrying amount of $50,000, and a fair value of $70,000 as of the lease

commencement date. Lessor expects the asset to have a residual value at the end of the lease term of

$20,000. Lessor incurs $2,500 in initial direct costs. Lessor uses leases as an alternative means of

realizing value from the goods it otherwise sells.

Lessor computes a rate implicit in the lease of 3.9392 percent, which is the discount rate that equates

the present value of the $12,000 lease payments plus the expected residual value of $20,000 with

the fair value of $70,000. Since the asset’s carrying amount differs from its fair value at the lease

commencement date, Lessor excludes initial direct costs from its calculation of the rate implicit in the

lease (that is, Lessor does not add the initial direct costs to the fair value of the underlying asset when

calculating the rate implicit in the lease).

Lessor classifies the lease as a sales-type lease because the sum of the present values of the lease

payments and the residual value guaranteed by Lessee, discounted at the rate implicit in the lease, is

equal to substantially all of the asset’s fair value at the lease commencement date.

Lessor measures the net investment in the lease at $70,000, which represents the sum of (1) the

present value of the $12,000 annual payments over five years, (2) the present value of Lessee’s

$15,000 residual value guarantee, and (3) the present value of the $5,000 unguaranteed residual asset

(the difference between the expected residual value of $20,000 and the guaranteed residual value of

$15,000). All present values are calculated using a discount rate equal to the rate implicit in the lease,

which is 3.9392 percent.

Since Lessor uses leasing as an alternative to selling its goods, it presents selling profit on a gross

rather than net basis. Therefore, Lessor measures the selling profit at $20,000, which is equal to the

difference between revenue of $65,878 (calculated as the lesser of the fair value of the underlying asset

($70,000) and the lease receivable plus any prepaid lease payments ($65,878)), and cost of goods sold

of $45,878 (calculated as the carrying amount of the underlying asset ($50,000) net of the present value

of the unguaranteed residual asset ($4,122)).

At the lease commencement date, Lessor records the following journal entries:

Dr. Net investment in lease $70,000

Dr. Cost of goods sold $45,878

Cr. PP&E $50,000

Cr. Revenue $65,878

Dr. Expense $ 2,500

Lessor accounting 197

Cr. Cash $2,500

At the end of year one, Lessor records the receipt of cash, interest income, and an adjustment to the

net investment in the lease. Lessor calculates interest income as the beginning balance of the net

investment in the lease multiplied by the rate implicit in the lease ($70,000 x 3.9392% = $2,757). The

net investment in the lease is decreased for the cash received and increased for the interest income,

resulting in a net decrease of $9,243. Lessor records the following journal entries:

Dr. Cash $12,000

Cr. Net investment in lease $12,000

Dr. Net investment in lease $ 2,757

Cr. Interest income $ 2,757

6.1.3 Sales-type leases with significant variable payments

In certain cases, a lessor enters into a lease with a significant amount of variable payments. For example,

a lessor provides a customer with medical testing equipment for no additional consideration, along with

the right to purchase consumables used in operating the testing equipment for a fixed period of time, with

no minimum purchase required. Since variable payments that are not based on an index or rate are

excluded from lease payments, this type of lease could result in a day-one loss for the lessor if it is

determined to be sales-type lease, because the present value of the lease payments is less than the fair

value of the underlying asset.

Grant Thornton insights: Determining the rate implicit in a lease with significant

variable payments

The Master Glossary definition of “rate implicit in the lease” specifies that a lessor should use zero as

the rate implicit in the lease if the rate calculated is less than zero because the sum of the lease

payments and the expected residual value is less than the sum of the asset’s fair value and deferred

initial direct costs. Using a rate that is less than zero as the rate implicit in the lease is not appropriate.

Sales-type lease with significant variable payments

Lessor enters into a 20-year lease of solar panels, with monthly payments based on a fixed rate per

kilowatt hour multiplied by the number of kilowatt hours of electricity produced by the panels each

month. Lessee does not provide a residual value guarantee. The solar panels have a 25-year remaining

economic life, and the net carrying amount of the panels is equal to their fair value of $20,000 as of the

lease commencement date. Lessor expects the asset to have a residual value of $5,000 at the end of

the lease. Lessor incurs $2,500 in initial direct costs.

Lessor computes a rate implicit in the lease of -7.2446 percent, which is the discount rate that equates

the present value of the expected residual value of $5,000 with the sum of the fair value of $20,000 plus

deferred initial direct costs of $2,500. Since Lessor is not permitted to use a negative discount rate, the

rate implicit in the lease is assumed to be zero. The lease payments, as defined in ASC 842, are zero,

Lessor accounting 198

since the payments are entirely variable based on the volume of electricity produced by the panels and

are not based on an index or rate.

Lessor classifies the lease as a sales-type lease because, at the lease commencement date, the lease

term is equal to a major part of the asset’s economic life.

At the commencement date, Lessor records the net investment in the lease, which is the present value

of the residual value of the underlying asset of $5,000 discounted at a rate of zero, plus initial direct

costs of $2,500. Lessor derecognizes the equipment and recognizes the cash paid and the loss in the

following journal entries:

Dr. Net investment in lease $ 7,500

Cr. Property, plant, and equipment $20,000

Dr. Loss $15,000

Cr. Cash $ 2,500

The first year’s actual payments equal $1,000 and Lessor records the following journal entries in year

one:

Dr. Cash $1,000

Cr. Net investment in lease $125

Cr. Interest income $875

Since the rate implicit in the lease is zero, Lessor amortizes the net investment in the lease to the

asset’s unguaranteed residual value of $5,000 on a straight-line (or another systematic and rational)

basis over the 20-year lease term.

6.1.4 Derecognition

At the end of the lease term, the lessor in a sales-type lease reclassifies the net investment in the lease to

the appropriate asset category, and subsequently accounts for the asset using other applicable guidance,

such as ASC 360-10.

ASC 842-30-35-5

At the end of the lease term, a lessor shall reclassify the net investment in the lease to the appropriate

category of asset (for example, property, plant, and equipment) in accordance with other Topics,

measured at the carrying amount of the net investment in the lease. The lessor shall account for the

underlying asset that was the subject of a lease in accordance with other Topics.

6.1.5 Sales-type lease example

The following example from ASC 842-30-55 illustrates a lessor’s accounting for a sales-type lease.

Lessor accounting 199

Example 1—Lessor Accounting Example

Case A—Lessor Accounting—Sales-Type Lease

ASC 842-30-55-19

Lessor enters into a 6-year lease of equipment with Lessee, receiving annual lease payments of

$9,500, payable at the end of each year. Lessee provides a residual value guarantee of $13,000.

Lessor concludes that it is probable it will collect the lease payments and any amount necessary to

satisfy the residual value guarantee provided by Lessee. The equipment has a 9-year estimated

remaining economic life, a carrying amount of $54,000, and a fair value of $62,000 at the

commencement date. Lessor expects the residual value of the equipment to be $20,000 at the end

of the 6-year lease term. The lease does not transfer ownership of the underlying asset to Lessee or

contain an option for Lessee to purchase the underlying asset. Lessor incurs $2,000 in initial direct

costs in connection with obtaining the lease, and no amounts are prepaid by Lessee to Lessor. The

rate implicit in the lease is 5.4839 percent.

ASC 842-30-55-20

Lessor classifies the lease as a sales-type lease because the sum of the present value of the

lease payments and the present value of the residual value guaranteed by the lessee amounts to

substantially all of the fair value of the equipment. None of the other criteria to be classified as a sales-

type lease are met. In accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-4, the discount rate used to determine the

present value of the lease payments and the present value of the residual value guaranteed by Lessee

(5.4839 percent) for purposes of assessing whether the lease is a sales-type lease under the criterion

in paragraph 842-10-25-2(d) assumes that no initial direct costs will be capitalized because the fair

value of the equipment is different from its carrying amount.

ASC 842-30-55-21

Lessor measures the net investment in the lease at $62,000 at lease commencement, which is equal

to the fair value of the equipment. The net investment in the lease consists of the lease receivable

(which includes the 6 annual payments of $9,500 and the residual value guarantee of $13,000, both

discounted at the rate implicit in the lease, which equals $56,920) and the present value of the

unguaranteed residual value (the present value of the difference between the expected residual value

of $20,000 and the residual value guarantee of $13,000, which equals $5,080). Lessor calculates the

selling profit on the lease as $8,000, which is the difference between the lease receivable ($56,920)

and the carrying amount of the equipment net of the unguaranteed residual asset ($54,000 – $5,080 =

$48,920). The initial direct costs do not factor into the calculation of the selling profit in this Example

because they are not eligible for deferral on the basis of the guidance in paragraph 842-30-25-1(c)

(that is, because the fair value of the underlying asset is different from its carrying amount at the

commencement date).

ASC 842-30-55-22

At the commencement date, Lessor derecognizes the equipment (carrying amount of $54,000) and

recognizes the net investment in the lease of $62,000 and the selling profit of $8,000. Lessor also pays

and recognizes the initial direct costs of $2,000 as an expense.

ASC 842-30-55-23

Lessor accounting 200

At the end of Year 1, Lessor recognizes the receipt of a lease payment of $9,500 and interest on the

net investment in the lease (the beginning balance of the net investment in the lease of $62,000 × the

rate implicit in the lease of 5.4839% = $3,400), resulting in a balance in the net investment of the lease

of $55,900. For disclosure purposes, Lessor also calculates the separate components of the net

investment in the lease: the lease receivable and the unguaranteed residual asset. The lease

receivable equals $50,541 (the beginning balance of the lease receivable of $56,920 – the annual

lease payment received of $9,500 + the amount of interest income on the lease receivable during

Year 1 of $3,121, which is $56,920 × 5.4839%). The unguaranteed residual asset equals $5,360 (the

beginning balance of the unguaranteed residual asset of $5,081 + the interest income on the

unguaranteed residual asset during Year 1 of $279, which is $5,081 × 5.4839%).

ASC 842-30-55-24

At the end of Year 6, Lessor reclassifies the net investment in the lease, then equal to the estimated

residual value of the underlying asset of $20,000, as equipment.

6.2 Direct financing leases

A lease that does not meet any one of the five general classification criteria in Section 4.1, but instead

meets the two lessor-specific criteria in Section 4.2, is classified as a direct financing lease by the lessor.

A direct financing lease converts the lessor’s risk from asset risk to credit risk. In other words, rather than

being exposed to fluctuations in the underlying asset’s fair value during the lease term as an owner of the

asset, the lessor assumes credit risk based on the lessee’s ability to fulfill its payment obligations in a

direct financing lease. Accordingly, the lessor in a direct financing lease derecognizes the underlying

asset, recognizes any loss or defers any profit associated with derecognizing the asset, and recognizes a

net investment in the lease, which includes a lease receivable for the payments owed by the lessee for

using the asset over the lease term. The payments reflected in the lease’s net investment include only

those payments that meet the definition of lease payments, as discussed in Section 1.4. During the lease

term, the lessor recognizes interest income on the net investment in the lease. At the end of the lease,

the lessor reclassifies the net investment in the lease to the appropriate asset category, and subsequently

accounts for that asset using the relevant accounting guidance, such as ASC 360-10.

6.2.1 Initial recognition and measurement

On the commencement date of a direct financing lease, the lessor must derecognize the underlying

asset, and recognize net investment in the lease and any selling loss. Any selling profit is deferred and

recognized over the term of the lease.

ASC 842-30-25-7

At the commencement date, a lessor shall recognize both of the following and derecognize the

underlying asset in accordance with paragraph 842-30-40-1:

a. A net investment in the lease, measured in accordance with paragraph 842-30-30-2.

b. Selling loss arising from the lease, if applicable.

Lessor accounting 201

Derecognition of the leased asset

At the commencement date of a direct financing lease, the lessor derecognizes the carrying amount of

the underlying asset using the guidance in ASC 842-30-40-1.

Net investment in the lease

At the commencement date of a direct financing lease, the lessor measures and recognizes the net

investment in the lease, which comprises the following components:

 The lease receivable, measured at the present value and discounted using the rate implicit in the

lease, which consists of

 Lease payments not yet received by the lessor

 The amount the lessor expects to receive from a residual value guarantee from the lessee or a

third party

 The present value of the unguaranteed residual asset, discounted using the rate implicit in the lease.

The unguaranteed residual asset represents the amount the lessor expects to derive from the

underlying asset after the lease ends that is not guaranteed by the lessee or a third party. When the

underlying asset is land, the residual value of the land should not exceed the land’s fair value at the

commencement date (see discussion in Section 1.4.7).

 Deferred profit on the lease, if any

While the lessor is not required to present these components separately in the financial statements, they

must be disclosed separately in the notes.

For a discussion of the residual value in a long-term land lease, see Section 6.1.1.

ASC 842-30-30-2

At the commencement date, for a direct financing lease, a lessor shall measure the net investment in

the lease to include the items in paragraph 842-30-30-1(a) through (b), reduced by the amount of any

selling profit.

ASC 842-30-25-8

Selling profit and initial direct costs (see paragraphs 842-10-30-9 through 30-10) are deferred at the

commencement date and included in the measurement of the net investment in the lease. The rate

implicit in the lease is defined in such a way that initial direct costs deferred in accordance with this

paragraph are included automatically in the net investment in the lease; there is no need to add them

separately.

Initial direct costs

Initial direct costs are the incremental costs of obtaining a lease, as defined in Section 1.2. The initial

direct costs are reflected in the initial measurement of the net investment in the lease, based on how the

rate implicit in the lease is calculated. For further discussion about the relationship between initial direct

costs and the rate implicit in the lease, please refer to Section 1.8.1

Lessor accounting 202

Selling profit or loss

At the lease commencement date, the lessor in a direct financing lease must determine whether there is

selling profit or loss. If there is a selling loss, the lessor recognizes that amount in the statement of

comprehensive income at the commencement date. If there is a selling profit, the lessor defers and

recognizes that amount over the lease term. Recognizing profit over the lease term is consistent with the

economic substance of a direct financing lease, which is that of a lending arrangement, in that the profit

represents the lessor’s credit-based return on its net investment. If instead the lessor were to defer any

selling profit to be recognized in full at the end of the lease term (rather than recognized over the lease

term), it might recognize a loss on the sale of the residual asset, which would not reflect the economic

substance of the leasing transaction, as discussed in paragraph BC97 of ASU 2016-02.

Selling profit or loss is equal to the difference between (1) the lower of the fair value of the underlying

asset or the sum of the lease receivable plus any lease payments prepaid by the lessee, and (2) the

carrying amount of the underlying asset net of any unguaranteed residual asset, minus the lessor’s

deferred initial direct costs. Initial direct costs in a direct financing lease are automatically deferred based

on how the rate implicit in the lease is calculated, meaning that the lease receivable reflects the deferred

initial direct costs. Therefore, computing the selling profit or loss without subtracting the deferred initial

direct costs would overstate the selling profit or loss, as discussed in paragraph BC302 of ASU 2016-02.

Selling Profit or Selling Loss: At the commencement date, selling profit or selling loss equals:

a. The fair value of the underlying asset or the sum of (1) the lease receivable and (2) any lease

payments prepaid by the lessee, if lower; minus

b. The carrying amount of the underlying asset net of any unguaranteed residual asset; minus

c. Any deferred initial direct costs of the lessor.

6.2.2 Subsequent recognition and measurement

A lessor in a direct financing lease must recognize the following items for each reporting period that

occurs during the lease term:

 Interest income on the net investment in the lease

 Variable lease payments that are excluded from the lease’s net investment as income if the changes

that trigger the variable payments have occurred during the reporting period

 Impairment of the net investment in the lease

See Section 6.8 for information about assessing the net investment in the lease for impairment.

Lessor accounting 203

ASC 842-30-25-9

After the commencement date, a lessor shall recognize all of the following:

a. Interest income on the net investment in the lease, measured in accordance with paragraph 842-

30-35-1(a).

b. Variable lease payments that are not included in the net investment in the lease as income in profit

or loss in the period when the changes in facts and circumstances on which the variable lease

payments are based occur.

c. Impairment of the net investment in the lease (as described in paragraph 842-30-35-3).

Direct financing lease

Lessor and Lessee enter into a five-year lease of equipment with annual payments of $12,000, payable

in arrears. A third party provides a residual value guarantee of $15,000. The equipment has a ten-year

remaining economic life, a net carrying amount of $50,000, and a fair value of $70,000 as of the lease

commencement date. Lessor expects the asset to have a residual value of $20,000 at the end of the

lease term. Lessor incurs $2,500 in initial direct costs.

Lessor first evaluates the lease to determine whether it is a sales-type lease. Lessor computes an

implicit rate (3.9392 percent) (see the “Sales-type lease with fixed payments” example, in Section 6.1.3,

for information about how this rate is computed). The present value of the lease payments plus the

residual value guaranteed by Lessee (which is zero in this example) is equal to 76 percent of the asset’s

fair value, which is less than substantially all of the underlying asset’s fair value. Since the lease does

not meet any of the general classification criteria in Section 4.1, Lessor determines that the lease is not

a sales-type lease.

Next, Lessor evaluates the lease to determine whether it is a direct financing lease. Lessor computes a

rate implicit in the lease of 2.8793 percent, which is the discount rate that equates the present value of

the $12,000 lease payments and the expected residual value of $20,000, with the sum of the fair value

of $70,000 plus $2,500 in deferred initial direct costs.

Lessor classifies the lease as a direct financing lease because the sum of the present values of the

lease payments and the guaranteed residual value, discounted at the rate implicit in the lease

(2.8793 percent), is equal to substantially all of the asset’s fair value at the lease commencement date,

and collectibility of the lease payments is probable.

Lessor initially measures the net investment in the lease at $52,500, which represents the sum of (1) the

present value of the $12,000 annual payments over five years, (2) the present value of the $15,000

residual value guarantee, and (3) the present value of the $5,000 unguaranteed residual asset (the

difference between the expected residual value of $20,000 and the guaranteed residual value of

$15,000), minus the deferred profit of $20,000. The deferred profit is equal to (1) the lesser of the fair

value of the underlying asset ($70,000) and the lease receivable plus any prepaid lease payments

($68,162), minus (2) the carrying amount of the underlying asset ($50,000) net of the present value of

the unguaranteed residual asset ($4,338), minus deferred initial direct costs of $2,500.

Lessor accounting 204

At the lease commencement date, Lessor records the following journal entries:

Dr. Net investment in lease $52,500

Cr. Property plant and equipment $50,000

Cr. Cash $ 2,500

At the end of year one, Lessor recognizes $12,000 for the first payment received. Lessor also

recognizes interest income of $7,022, calculated by multiplying the net investment in the lease by the

rate necessary to amortize the value of the net investment to the expected residual value of the

underlying asset at the end of the lease term ($52,500 x 13.3752 percent = $7,022). Lessor recognizes

a decrease of $4,987 in the lease’s net investment, which is calculated as the difference between the

cash payment and the interest income ($12,000 – $7,022 = $4,978). Accordingly, at the end of year

one, Lessor records the following journal entries:

Dr. Cash $12,000

Cr. Net investment in lease $4,978

Cr. Interest income $7,022

6.2.3 Derecognition

At the end of the lease term, the lessor in a direct financing lease reclassifies the net investment in the

lease to the appropriate asset category, and subsequently accounts for the asset using other guidance,

such as ASC 360-10.

6.2.4 Direct financing lease example

The following example from ASC 842-30-55 illustrates how a lessor accounts for a direct financing lease.

The facts and circumstances from Case A are included in the example below, since Case C is based on

those same facts and circumstances.

Example 1—Lessor Accounting Example

[Excerpt from Case A—Lessor Accounting—Sales-Type Lease included for reference]

ASC 842-30-55-19

Lessor enters into a 6-year lease of equipment with Lessee, receiving annual lease payments of

$9,500, payable at the end of each year. Lessee provides a residual value guarantee of $13,000.

Lessor concludes that it is probable it will collect the lease payments and any amount necessary

to satisfy the residual value guarantee provided by Lessee. The equipment has a 9-year estimated

remaining economic life, a carrying amount of $54,000, and a fair value of $62,000 at the

commencement date. Lessor expects the residual value of the equipment to be $20,000 at the end

of the 6-year lease term. The lease does not transfer ownership of the underlying asset to Lessee or

contain an option for Lessee to purchase the underlying asset. Lessor incurs $2,000 in initial direct

costs in connection with obtaining the lease, and no amounts are prepaid by Lessee to Lessor. The

rate implicit in the lease is 5.4839 percent.

Lessor accounting 205

Case C—Lessor Accounting—Direct Financing Lease

ASC 842-30-55-31

Assume the same facts and circumstances as in Case A (paragraphs 842-30-55-19 through 55-24),

except that the $13,000 residual value guarantee is provided by a third party, not by Lessee.

Collectibility of the lease payments and any amount necessary to satisfy the third party residual

value guarantee is probable.

ASC 842-30-55-32

None of the criteria in paragraph 842-10-25-2 to be classified as a sales-type lease are met. In

accordance with paragraph 842-10-25-4, the discount rate used to determine the present value of the

lease payments (5.4839 percent) for purposes of assessing whether the lease is a sales-type lease

under the criterion in paragraph 842-10-25-2(d) assumes that no initial direct costs will be capitalized

because the fair value of the equipment is different from its carrying amount.

ASC 842-30-55-32A

Rather, Lessor classifies the lease as a direct financing lease because the sum of the present value of

the lease payments and the present value of the residual value guaranteed by the third party amounts

to substantially all of the fair value of the equipment, and it is probable that Lessor will collect the lease

payments plus any amount necessary to satisfy the third-party residual value guarantee. The discount

rate used to determine the present value of the lease payments and the present value of the third-party

residual value guarantee for purposes of assessing whether the lease meets the criterion in paragraph

842-10-25-3(b)(1) to be classified as a direct financing lease is the rate implicit in the lease of

4.646 percent, which includes the initial direct costs of $2,000 that Lessor incurred.

ASC 842-30-55-33

At the commencement date, Lessor derecognizes the equipment and recognizes a net investment in

the lease of $56,000, which is equal to the carrying amount of the underlying asset of $54,000 plus the

initial direct costs of $2,000 that are included in the measurement of the net investment in the lease in

accordance with paragraph 842-30-25-8 (that is, because the lease is classified as a direct financing

lease). The net investment in the lease includes a lease receivable of $58,669 (the present value of the

6 annual lease payments of $9,500 and the third-party residual value guarantee of $13,000, discounted

at the rate implicit in the lease of 4.646 percent), an unguaranteed residual asset of $5,331 (the present

value of the difference between the estimated residual value of $20,000 and the third-party residual

value guarantee of $13,000, discounted at 4.646 percent), and deferred selling profit of $8,000.

ASC 842-30-55-34

Lessor calculates the deferred selling profit of $8,000 in this Example as follows:

a. The lease receivable ($58,669); minus

b. The carrying amount of the equipment ($54,000), net of the unguaranteed residual asset ($5,331),

which equals $48,669; minus

c. The initial direct costs included in the measurement of the net investment in the lease ($2,000).

Lessor accounting 206

ASC 842-30-55-35

At the end of Year 1, Lessor recognizes the receipt of the lease payment of $9,500 and interest on the

net investment in the lease of $4,624 (the beginning balance of the net investment in the lease of

$56,000 × the discount rate that, at the commencement date, would have resulted in the sum of the

lease receivable and the unguaranteed residual asset equaling $56,000, which is 8.258 percent),

resulting in a balance in the net investment of the lease of $51,124.

ASC 842-30-55-36

Also at the end of Year 1, Lessor calculates, for disclosure purposes, the separate components of the

net investment in the lease: the lease receivable, the unguaranteed residual asset, and the deferred

selling profit. The lease receivable equals $51,895 (the beginning balance of the lease receivable of

$58,669 – the annual lease payment received of $9,500 + the amount of interest income on the lease

receivable during Year 1 of $2,726, which is $58,669 × 4.646%). The unguaranteed residual asset

equals $5,578 (the beginning balance of the unguaranteed residual asset of $5,331 + the interest

income on the unguaranteed residual asset during Year 1 of $247, which is $5,331 × 4.646%). The

deferred selling profit equals $6,349 (the initial deferred selling profit of $8,000 – $1,651 recognized

during Year 1 [the $1,651 is the difference between the interest income recognized on the net

investment in the lease during Year 1 of $4,624 calculated in paragraph 842-30-55-35 and the sum

of the interest income earned on the lease receivable and the unguaranteed residual asset during

Year 1]).

ASC 842-30-55-37

At the end of Year 2, Lessor recognizes the receipt of the lease payment of $9,500 and interest on the

net investment in the lease (the beginning of Year 2 balance of the net investment in the lease of

$51,124 × 8.258%, which is $4,222), resulting in a carrying amount of the net investment in the lease

of $45,846.

ASC 842-30-55-38

Also at the end of Year 2, Lessor calculates the separate components of the net investment in the

lease. The lease receivable equals $44,806 (the beginning of Year 2 balance of $51,895 – the annual

lease payment received of $9,500 + the interest income earned on the lease receivable during Year 2

of $2,411, which is $51,895 × 4.646%). The unguaranteed residual asset equals $5,837 (the beginning

of Year 2 balance of the unguaranteed residual asset of $5,578 + the interest income earned on the

unguaranteed residual asset during Year 2 of $259, which is $5,578 × 4.646%). The deferred selling

profit equals $4,797 (the beginning of Year 2 balance of deferred selling profit of $6,349 – $1,552

recognized during Year 2 [the $1,552 is the difference between the interest income recognized on the

net investment in the lease during Year 2 of $4,222 and the sum of the interest income earned on the

lease receivable and the unguaranteed residual asset during Year 2]).

ASC 842-30-55-39

At the end of Year 6, Lessor reclassifies the net investment in the lease, then equal to the estimated

residual value of the underlying asset of $20,000, as equipment.

Lessor accounting 207

6.3 Operating leases

Unlike in a sales-type or a direct financing lease, the lessor in an operating lease remains exposed to risk

by way of future changes in the fair value of the underlying asset (asset risk). Therefore, the lessor

continues to recognize the underlying asset on its statement of financial position, does not recognize a

net investment in the lease or any selling profit or loss, and recognizes income generally on a straight-line

basis over the lease term.

6.3.1 Initial recognition and measurement

At the commencement date of an operating lease, the lessor does not derecognize the underlying asset.

The lessor continues depreciating the asset over the lease term and assessing it for impairment when

appropriate.

ASC 842-30-30-4

A lessor shall continue to measure the underlying asset subject to an operating lease in accordance

with other Topics.

ASC 842-30-35-6

A lessor shall continue to measure, including testing for impairment in accordance with Section 360-10-

35 on impairment or disposal of long-lived assets, the underlying asset subject to an operating lease in

accordance with other Topics.

If, at the commencement of an operating lease, a lessor determines that collectibility of lease payments

and any amount needed to satisfy a residual value guarantee is not probable, then lease income is limited

to the lesser of either (1) the amount that would have been recognized on a straight-line or other

systematic and rational basis had collectibility been probable, or (2) the amount that has actually been

collected from the lessee. Refer to Section 6.4.3 for further discussion of how a lessor considers

collectibility for an operating lease.

Initial direct costs

A lessor defers and expenses initial direct costs in an operating lease over the lease term. Refer to

Section 1.2 for more information about initial direct costs.

ASC 842-30-25-10

At the commencement date, a lessor shall defer initial direct costs.

6.3.2 Subsequent recognition and measurement

After the commencement date of an operating lease, the lessor recognizes the following:

 Lease payments as income over the lease term on a straight-line or other systematic and rational

basis

Lessor accounting 208

 Variable lease payments as income in the period when the changes that trigger the variable lease

payments occur

 Initial direct costs as expense over the lease term on the same basis as lease income

ASC 842-30-25-11

After the commencement date, a lessor shall recognize all of the following:

a. The lease payments as income in profit or loss over the lease term on a straight-line basis unless

another systematic and rational basis is more representative of the pattern in which benefit is

expected to be derived from the use of the underlying asset, subject to paragraph 842-30-25-12.

b. Variable lease payments as income in profit or loss in the period in which the changes in facts and

circumstances on which the variable lease payments are based occur.

c. Initial direct costs as an expense over the lease term on the same basis as lease income (as

described in (a)).

The implementation guidance in ASC 842-30-55 states that when considering how to recognize lease

payments in an operating lease, lessors should treat the right to control the use of the asset the same as

the physical use of the asset. Therefore, the extent to which a lessee uses the underlying asset should

not impact how the lessor recognizes income.

ASC 842-30-55-17

This Subtopic considers the right to control the use of the underlying asset as the equivalent of physical

use. If the lessee controls the use of the underlying asset, recognition of lease income in accordance

with paragraph 842-30-25-11(a) should not be affected by the extent to which the lessee uses the

underlying asset.

Lease payments recognized as income

A lessor recognizes lease payments from an operating lease as income in profit or loss generally on a

straight-line basis over the lease term. However, the Board noted in paragraph BC327 in ASU 2016-02

that a lessor might depart from using a straight-line basis to recognize income from an operating lease if

doing so better represents how the underlying asset is being used. The Board clarified that a lessor is still

expected to recognize fixed payments on a straight-line basis when payments are uneven for reasons

other than to reflect or compensate for market rentals or market conditions. For example, the Board

expects a lessor to recognize lease income on a straight-line basis if there is significant front-loading or

back-loading of payments or if a lease contains rent-free periods.

Lessor accounting 209

At the crossroads: Lessor’s recognition of operating lease income

Based on discussion with the FASB staff, it is our understanding that the Board did not intend the

discussion in paragraph BC327 to change how lessors recognize operating lease income under legacy

GAAP. Specifically, under ASC 842, lessors are not required to evaluate uneven operating lease

payment patterns to determine whether the pattern corresponds to expectations about changes in

market rentals or market conditions. Further, the guidance in paragraphs ASC 842-30-25-11(a) and

ASC 842-30-55-17 are authoritative guidance, which take precedence over the discussion in the Basis

for Conclusions. Accordingly, we expect that most operating leases will continue to be recognized on a

straight-line basis under ASC 842.

ASU 2016-02 BC327

Although in the Board’s view, recognizing rental income on a straight-line basis often will reflect the

pattern in which income is earned from the underlying asset, it noted, consistent with previous GAAP,

that will not always be the case. For example, the Board concluded that it would be simpler and

more consistent with its proposals on variable lease payments to recognize lease income arising

from variable lease payments for operating leases in the period in which the changes in facts

and circumstances on which the payments are based occur, rather than on a straight-line basis.

Consequently, the Board decided that a lessor should recognize rental income on a systematic basis

that is not straight line if that basis was more representative of the pattern in which income is earned

from the underlying asset. Nonetheless, a lessor is expected to recognize uneven fixed lease

payments on a straight-line basis when the payments are uneven for reasons other than to reflect

or compensate for market rentals or market conditions (for example, when there is significant front-

loading or back-loading of payments or when rent-free periods exist in a lease).

Variable lease payments

Variable lease payments are recognized as income in the period when the changes in facts and

circumstances that triggered the variable payments occur. In this regard, a lessor’s accounting for an

operating lease should mirror its accounting for sales-type and direct financing leases.

Initial direct costs

Initial direct costs incurred by a lessor in connection with an operating lease must be deferred at the

commencement date of the lease and subsequently recognized as expense on the same basis as the

lease payments (generally a straight-line basis) over the term of the lease.

6.4 Collectibility

At the commencement date of the lease, the lessor assesses whether it is probable that it will collect the

lease payments and any residual value guarantee from the lessee. The definition of “probable” used in

this assessment means that the collection of payments is “likely to occur” in line with the definition of

probable in other areas of U.S. GAAP. For further discussion on collectibility, refer to Section 4.2.2.

Lessor accounting 210

6.4.1 Sales-type leases and collectibility

If the collectibility of payments from the lessee is not probable in a sales-type lease, the lessor neither

derecognizes the underlying asset nor recognizes a net investment in the lease. Instead, the lessor

recognizes the lease payments received, including variable payments, as a deposit liability until one of

the following events occurs:

 Collectibility becomes probable.

 The contract is terminated and the lease payments are nonrefundable.

 The lessor has repossessed the underlying asset, has no further obligation under the contract to the

lessee, and the lease payments received are nonrefundable.

ASC 842-30-40-1

At the commencement date, a lessor shall derecognize the carrying amount of the underlying asset (if

previously recognized) unless the lease is a sales-type lease and collectibility of the lease payments is

not probable (see paragraph 842-30-25-3).

ASC 842-30-25-3

The guidance in paragraphs 842-30-25-1 through 25-2 notwithstanding, if collectibility of the lease

payments, plus any amount necessary to satisfy a residual value guarantee provided by the lessee, is

not probable at the commencement date, the lessor shall not derecognize the underlying asset but

shall recognize lease payments received—including variable lease payments—as a deposit liability

until the earlier of either of the following:

a. Collectibility of the lease payments, plus any amount necessary to satisfy a residual value

guarantee provided by the lessee, becomes probable. If collectibility is not probable at the

commencement date, a lessor shall continue to assess collectibility to determine whether the lease

payments and any amount necessary to satisfy a residual value guarantee are probable of

collection.

b. Either of the following events occurs:

1. The contract has been terminated, and the lease payments received from the lessee are

nonrefundable.

2. The lessor has repossessed the underlying asset, it has no further obligation under the contract

to the lessee, and the lease payments received from the lessee are nonrefundable.

If collectibility is not probable at lease commencement for a sales-type lease, a lessor should reassess

collectibility until collectibility is probable or the lease is terminated. If collectibility becomes probable

during the term of the lease, the lessor must

 Derecognize the carrying amount of the underlying asset

 Derecognize the amount of any deposit liability recognized based on payments received

 Recognize a net investment in the lease on the basis of the remaining lease payments discounted at

the rate implicit in the lease determined at the commencement date

Lessor accounting 211

 Recognize selling profit or selling loss, based on

 The lease receivable plus the carrying amount of the deposit liability, minus

 The carrying amount of the underlying asset (net of the unguaranteed residual asset)

ASC 842-30-25-4

When collectibility is not probable at the commencement date, at the date the criterion in paragraph

842-30-25-3(a) is met (that is, the date at which collectibility of the lease payments plus any amount

necessary to satisfy a residual value guarantee provided by the lessee is assessed as probable), the

lessor shall do all of the following:

a. Derecognize the carrying amount of the underlying asset.

b. Derecognize the carrying amount of any deposit liability recognized in accordance with

paragraph 842-30-25-3.

c. Recognize a net investment in the lease on the basis of the remaining lease payments and

remaining lease term, using the rate implicit in the lease determined at the commencement date.

d. Recognize selling profit or selling loss calculated as:

1. The lease receivable; plus

2. The carrying amount of the deposit liability; minus

3. The carrying amount of the underlying asset, net of the unguaranteed residual asset.

ASC 842-30-25-5

When collectibility is not probable at the commencement date, at the date the criterion in paragraph

842-30-25-3(b) is met, the lessor shall derecognize the carrying amount of any deposit liability

recognized in accordance with paragraph 842-30-25-3, with the corresponding amount recognized as

lease income.

ASC 842-30-25-6

If collectibility is probable at the commencement date for a sales-type lease or for a direct financing

lease, a lessor shall not reassess whether collectibility is probable. Subsequent changes in the credit

risk of the lessee shall be accounted for in accordance with the impairment guidance applicable to the

net investment in the lease in paragraph 842-30-35-3.

Example 1, Case B from ASC 842-30-55, shows how the lessor accounts for a sales-type lease if

collectibility is not probable at the lease commencement date. The facts and circumstances from Case A

are repeated in the example below, because Case B is based on those same facts and circumstances.

Lessor accounting 212

Example 1—Lessor Accounting Example

[Excerpt from Case A—Lessor Accounting—Sales-Type Lease included for reference]

ASC 842-30-55-19

Lessor enters into a 6-year lease of equipment with Lessee, receiving annual lease payments of

$9,500, payable at the end of each year. Lessee provides a residual value guarantee of $13,000.

Lessor concludes that it is probable it will collect the lease payments and any amount necessary to

satisfy the residual value guarantee provided by Lessee. The equipment has a 9-year estimated

remaining economic life, a carrying amount of $54,000, and a fair value of $62,000 at the

commencement date. Lessor expects the residual value of the equipment to be $20,000 at the end of

the 6-year lease term. The lease does not transfer ownership of the underlying asset to Lessee or

contain an option for Lessee to purchase the underlying asset. Lessor incurs $2,000 in initial direct

costs in connection with obtaining the lease, and no amounts are prepaid by Lessee to Lessor. The

rate implicit in the lease is 5.4839 percent.

Case B—Lessor Accounting—Sales-Type Lease—Collectibility of the Lease Payments

Is Not Probable

ASC 842-30-55-25

Assume the same facts and circumstances as in Case A (paragraphs 842-30-55-19 through 55-24),

except that it is not probable Lessor will collect the lease payments and any amount necessary to

satisfy the residual value guarantee provided by Lessee. In reaching this conclusion, the entity

observes that Lessee’s ability and intention to pay may be in doubt because of the following factors:

a. Lessee intends to make the lease payments primarily from income derived from its business in

which the equipment will be used (which is a business facing significant risks because of high

competition in the industry and Lessee’s limited experience)

b. Lessee has limited credit history and no significant other income or assets with which to make the

payments if the business is not successful.

ASC 842-30-55-26

In accordance with paragraph 842-30-25-3, Lessor does not derecognize the equipment and does not

recognize a net investment in the lease or any selling profit or selling loss. However, consistent with

Case A, Lessor pays and recognizes the initial direct costs of $2,000 as an expense at the

commencement date.

ASC 842-30-55-27

At the end of Year 1, Lessor reassesses whether it is probable it will collect the lease payments and

any amount necessary to satisfy the residual value guarantee provided by Lessee and concludes that it

is not probable. In addition, neither of the events in paragraph 842-30-25-3(b) has occurred. The

contract has not been terminated and Lessor has not repossessed the equipment because Lessee is

fulfilling the terms of the contract. Consequently, Lessor accounts for the $9,500 Year 1 lease payment

Lessor accounting 213

as a deposit liability in accordance with paragraph 842-30-25-3. Lessor recognizes depreciation

expense on the equipment of $7,714 ($54,000 carrying value ÷ 7-year useful life).

ASC 842-30-55-28

Lessor’s accounting in Years 2 and 3 is the same as in Year 1. At the end of Year 4, Lessee makes the

fourth $9,500 annual lease payment such that the deposit liability equals $38,000. Lessor concludes

that collectibility of the lease payments and any amount necessary to satisfy the residual value

guarantee provided by Lessee is now probable on the basis of Lessee’s payment history under the

contract and the fact that Lessee has been successfully operating its business for four years. Lessor

does not reassess the classification of the lease as a sales-type lease.

ASC 842-30-55-29

Consequently, at the end of Year 4, Lessor derecognizes the equipment, which has a carrying amount

of $23,143, and recognizes a net investment in the lease of $35,519. The net investment in the lease

consists of the lease receivable (the sum of the 2 remaining annual payments of $9,500 and the

residual value guarantee of $13,000, discounted at the rate implicit in the lease of 5.4839 percent

determined at the commencement date, which equals $29,228) and the unguaranteed residual asset

(the present value of the difference between the expected residual value of $20,000 and the residual

value guarantee of $13,000, which equals $6,291). Lessor recognizes selling profit of $50,376, the

difference between (a) the sum of the lease receivable and the carrying amount of the deposit liability

($29,228 lease receivable + $38,000 in lease payments already made = $67,228) and (b) the carrying

amount of the equipment, net of the unguaranteed residual asset ($23,143 – $6,291 = $16,852).

ASC 842-30-55-30

After the end of Year 4, Lessor accounts for the remaining two years of the lease in the same manner

as any other sales-type lease. Consistent with Case A, at the end of Year 6, Lessor reclassifies the net

investment in the lease, then equal to the estimated residual value of the underlying asset of $20,000,

as equipment.

6.4.2 Direct financing leases and collectibility

A lease that is not a sales-type lease is only classified as a direct financing lease if collectibility of the

lease payments and any amount necessary to satisfy a residual value guarantee is probable at lease

commencement. If collectibility is not probable, the lease would not meet the criteria to be classified as a

direct financing lease and would instead be classified as an operating lease.

6.4.3 Operating leases and collectibility

A lease is classified as an operating lease if it does not qualify as a sales-type lease and the lessor

decides at lease commencement that collectibility of the lease payments and any amount necessary to

satisfy a residual guarantee is not probable. In this case, the lessor’s lease income is limited to the lesser

of (1) the lease income that would have been recognized had collectibility been probable, or (2) the lease

payments collected from the lessee to date, including any variable lease payments.

A lessor must continuously monitor collectibility for an operating lease. If the lessor’s assessment of

collectibility changes from probable to not probable, or vice versa, during the lease term, it must

recognize an adjustment to lease income in the period in which its collectibility assessment changes, so

that the cumulative lease income recognized is equal to the lesser of either (1) the amount that would

Lessor accounting 214

have been recognized on a straight-line or other systematic and rational basis had collectibility been

probable, or (2) the amount that has actually been collected from the lessee.

ASC 842-30-25-12

If collectibility of the lease payments plus any amount necessary to satisfy a residual value guarantee

(provided by the lessee or any other unrelated third party) is not probable at the commencement date,

lease income shall be limited to the lesser of the income that would be recognized in accordance with

paragraph 842-30-25-11(a) through (b) or the lease payments, including variable lease payments, that

have been collected from the lessee.

ASC 842-30-25-13

If the assessment of collectibility changes after the commencement date, any difference between the

lease income that would have been recognized in accordance with paragraph 842-30-25-11(a) through

(b) and the lease payments, including variable lease payments, that have been collected from the

lessee shall be recognized as a current-period adjustment to lease income.

Example 1, Case B, in ASC 842-30-55 illustrates a lessor’s accounting for a direct financing lease when

collectibility is not probable at the commencement date of the lease, but is later deemed probable. The

facts and circumstances used in Case A and Case C are repeated here since they also apply to Case D.

Example 1—Lessor Accounting Example

[Excerpt from Case A—Lessor Accounting—Sales-Type Lease and Case C—Lessor

Accounting—Direct Financing Lease included for reference]