The Financial Accounting Resource Center™ is a comprehensive research service that provides the full text of standards, the latest news from the Accounting Policy & Practice Report ®,...
Dec. 14 — The Financial Accounting Standards Board voted 4-3 to revise its proposed view on the presentation method not-for-profit entities should use for operating cash flows.
FASB Dec. 11 decided nonprofits should be allowed the flexibility to chose either the direct method or indirect method to present cash flows from operations.
The board, however, decided to change current requirements that they provide an indirect reconciliation if they chose to use the direct method in the statement of cash flows. That reconciliation won't be required, the board said.
The split vote came because board members felt the direct cash flow method is by far the more understandable method. Responses from some of the board's stakeholders, including universities, however, indicated many weren't in favor of the board mandating its usage, board discussions indicated.
“I truly believe that the direct method is much more understandable and more intuitive when you look at it and analyze it,” said FASB member Lawrence Smith. “That being said, there were a number of concerns raised that caused me to step back and pause to think about it,” he said.
A major concern, said Smith, is “a lot of board members of not-for-profit organizations come from a for-profit community, and they're used to seeing an indirect method,” and therefore a move to the direct method might be confusing to some of them.
The revised decision relates to a portion of the proposed accounting standards update issued by FASB in April titled, Not-for-Profit Entities (Topic 958) and Health Care Entities (Topic 954): Presentation of Financial Statements of Not-for-Profit Entities.
FASB proposed that all not-for-profit entities be required to use the direct method of presenting cash flows from operations. Under the main tenants of this view, the indirect method would have been permitted, but not required.
Support for the board's proposed viewpoint was mixed, though there was general acknowledgement that the direct method is more understandable than the indirect method, a FASB staff accountant said during the meeting.
While many respondents support requiring it, including preparers and auditors who had experience with the direct method, some stakeholders xpressed concerns about the perceived cost of going to the direct method, or about the overall usefulness of the cash flow statement under either method, staff said.
Furthermore, some respondents said they would prefer that the board wait until if—or when—it made the same change for business entities.
Related to reconciliation issues, support was also mixed about whether to retain the requirement to provide the indirect method's reconciliation of cash flows from operations to the total change in net assets, staff also said.
Many respondents said they believe no necessary information would be lost if the indirect method was no longer required. However, they still prefer to retain the reconciliation of operating cash flow to total change in net assets, staff said.
• temporarily restricted net assets and permanently restricted net assets should be combined into one donor-restricted net asset class;
• the total amount by which endowment funds are underwater—valued less—should be presented within net assets with donor restrictions;
• nonprofits should use an approach that considers when an asset is placed-in-service for reporting expirations of restrictions to acquire or construct long-lived assets. The option to release the donor-imposed restriction over the estimated useful life of the acquired life would be eliminated in such instances.
To contact the reporter on this story: Denise Lugo in Norwalk, Conn., at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Laura Tieger Salisbury at email@example.com
For a copy of the board's handout on this topic go to page nine of the following link http://src.bna.com/bwz.
For a discussion on preparing cash flow statements, see 5121-3rd, The Cash Flow Statement.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)