|
|
|
|
| 极具争议 电梯销售收入何时确认? |
| 发布时间：2011/11/22 来源： 阅读次数：479 |
| |
| 根据会计准则的规定，在日常经营活动中企业能确认为营业收入的内容可分为如下几类：销售商品收入、提供劳务收入、让渡资产所有权收入、租赁收入和建造合同收入五类。其中，前三类在《14号——收入》准则中规范；租赁收入在《21号——租赁》准则中规范；建造合同收入则在《15号——建造合同》准则中进行了规范。准则的规定貌似清晰，但我们在实际执行过程中却存在一些问题。 收入类别的边界问题 比如我们经常遇到一些客户，承接了一项工程，这些工程需要用到自己生产的产品，还需要对产品进行软件系统集成，最后还要安装该项产品，最后将工程移交给客户，移交之后还可能对软件按服务年限收取一定的服务费。 对于这个案例，我们到底如何来认定业务的性质，属于是销售产品还是提供劳务或是建造合同，甚至是长期租赁呢？实际上现在很多的系统集成并需要配备软件的企业都存在我所述的问题，另外还有其他很多令人纠结的情况。 比如，销售产品并附有安装义务的合同如果安装时间较长的话，到底是销售合同还是安装劳务合同？准则讲解中举例电梯销售的安装需要安装完毕后才确认为销售收入，但如果电梯安装需要很长时间，是否可分开为先销售电梯在发出存货且对方验收立即确认销售收入，然后安装劳务按照劳务提供进度确认劳务收入？如果合同中有相关分段收费时能否考虑？ 比如，软件公司销售为客户的定制软件，是属于销售产品，还是属于提供劳务的合同？我们在九其软件的招股书中发现是被认定为销售商品，但金蝶软件公司招股书则认为是提供劳务。 比如，某公司销售产品，先收回制作成本，然后在以后年度每年以服务费形式分期收款，是应该当作分期收款的商品销售，还是当作未来提供劳务收入，或者是说直接定义为租赁收入？租赁是融资租赁或者是经营租赁？ 如此等等，这些东西在我们作审计时常常会碰到，客户有其自己的考虑，甚至经常会随着自己的业绩要求而改变确认方式，当然他们也会按自己的目的去改变合同条款，但交易实质往往并没有任何区别。 收入确认条件的问题 任何一种收入的确认，基本都要满足风险转移、利益很可能流入和所有权与管理权转移三个条件，另外就是收入和成本的可计量。归类之后实质就是交易实质完成和可计量两个问题。 对于交易实质完成的判断，其实不是那么好判断的，在日常中大家常常会用到的标准包括：法律形式和经验判断。法律上会有一些条款，但这些条款哪些是实质条款，哪些是常识条款？比如规定由退货权，在销售货物之后的退货权期间到底能不能因此判断风险义务转移？法律条文和经验常常是不一致的。又比如我前面举例电梯销售，如果合同中规定了电梯款和安装费款，并且按照经验发出电梯都能安装成功，那么发出电梯是否可以确认销售收入？ 对于可靠计量的问题，也有一些疑虑。很多时候企业外购产品给客户系统集成后去安装中央控制室，如果当作安装劳务的形式或建造合同形式，确认进度又可能不一致。首先，如果确认为劳务合同的话，那么设备销售款我认为必单独分离出来确认销售收入；如果确认为建造合同的话，设备会进入建造合同总额，但一定不能按照工程成本投入量来确认完工进度，否则完工进度可操纵性太强。 由于很多问题我都没想清楚，可能我这个日记会让一些人本来觉得清楚得，搞得跟我一样糊涂，我先表示歉意，但我觉得先被我弄糊涂了，如果再有个明白人来指点清理一下，可能大家都会比以前更清楚。 网友热评： aegis：收入确认的事，干活时不能深究，深究时不能干活。 杜撰：1、比如，销售产品并附有安装义务的合同如果安装时间较长的话，到底是销售合同还是安装劳务合同？准则讲解中举例电梯销售的安装需要安装完毕后才确认为销售收入，但如果电梯安装需要很长时间，是否可分开为先销售电梯在发出存货且对方验收立即确认销售收入，然后安装劳务按照劳务提供进度确认劳务收入？如果合同中有相关分段收费时能否考虑？ 很多客户签该类合同的时候，一般都会约定，货到了，签收之后付款如70%，安装完毕25%（或+运行合格后合计），保修期满最后付5%；我认为可以分别销货和安装确认。 2、比如，软件公司销售为客户的定制软件，是属于销售产品，还是属于提供劳务的合同？我们在九其软件的招股书中发现是被认定为销售商品，但金蝶软件公司招股书则认为是提供劳务。 按《企业会计准则应用指南-收入》五提供劳务收入确认条件的具体应用，（三）为特定客户开发软件的收费，在资产负债表日根据开发的完工程度确认收入。 3、比如，某公司销售产品，先收回制作成本，然后在以后年度每年以服务费形式分期收款，是应该当作分期收款的商品销售，还是当作未来提供劳务收入，或者是说直接定义为租赁收入？租赁是融资租赁或者是经营租赁？ 我觉得要视先收回制作成本占总应当收款比例确认收入确认条件。如果大部分都收回了，且确实提供了后续服务，那么分别销售商品跟服务费确认。如果仅合同条款规定是服务费收入，但不需要或仅需要提供非常少的服务，那么不应当确认服务费收入。 国税函[1998]390号 国家税务总局关于电梯保养、维修收入征税问题 花农：推荐一个专业网站，http://www.revenuerecognition.com/ linwq1284： 关于电梯销售收入确认时点问题 电梯企业现状： 电梯安装，现在有两种，一种必须国家检验机关，验收合格才能投入使用。另一种不是在公共场合，包括高层住宅，只要厂检就可以。 电梯企业，生产要一个生产特殊资质，安装又要安装资质，并且在各地安装公司都要在各地有资质或备案，如果没有资质是不能安装。往往一个集团内是一个子公司生产电梯，另外各地有数个子公司是安装公司。 由于资质原因，电梯企业，除了一部分是附安装条款，但是绝大部分销售合同与安装合同是分开的。 往往是： 销售合同是生产企业与客户签订买断合同，但是仍可能10%款项要等安装调试完才付，主要原因是客户担心零配件调换。电梯款往往是几十万甚至上百万元。 安装合同，安装企业与客户签合同，付款按签合同、安装完成等几个阶段收费，安装费一般也不高，几万元。 两个合并范围内独立的公司，签订独立的合同。 这时候收入确认的标准问题： 1、是否要等安装完成确认收入？理由：从合并层面，两个子公司视同一个主体两个部门。因为各个部门你可以操纵，并且电梯只有安装完客户才能使用。 2、各自确认，即生产企业按发货验收确认收入，安装按完工百分比确认收入。理由各自都符合收入确认原则。 但是这样做，监管层到时会说你操纵利润，不谨慎。又是会计师的责任！ 3、另外安装按完工百分比，其实也很难，因为每个合同只有几万元，没办法分开到底是要如何分摊安装工人的工资，因为安装工人不是有活才付工资，没有活也要付工资。 对上述问题1、2，请各位大虾给予指正，也敬请财政部准则专家给予指导。 简单思考： 这些要从业务形式分析业务实质来判断，再根据准则的要求来确认，这是需要专业判断。 也许从几个方面都有道理，但实质还应是差异不大的。实务还是需要把各种业务形式理清楚，分类梳理，找出业务关健或实质地方，根据准则的要求进行专业判断！ 如电梯销售，主要看安装是不是销售的必要条件之一（不管是几个合同，几家单位及如何付款）。 如软件，主要是判断软件的所有权（终身使用权）和有限期间使用权，研发、定制、安装及后续服务等，按要合同主要部分、限制条款等规定，根据准则的风险、计量、分期要求来判断。 飞草：会计第一大问题。 下面这篇文章对理解这个问题有帮助： New Revenue-Recognition Rules: The Apple of Apple's Eye? The computer company and other tech outfits are likely to cash in on revenue-recognition changes if the new regs take on an international flavor. September 16, 2009 While Steve Jobs was preparing to introduce the new Apple iPod nano last week, the company's chief accountant, Betsy Rafael, was sending off a second letter to the Financial Accounting Standards Board related to revenue recognition. At issue: how FASB might rework the rules related to recognizing revenue for software that's bundled into a product and never sold separately. The rule is especially important to Apple because it affects the revenue related to two of the company's most successful products — the iPod and the iPhone. If FASB's time line holds to form, and the rules are recast in 2010 the way Apple hopes they will be, the company could be able to book revenue faster, yielding less time between product launches and associated revenue gains. In theory, a successful launch — and its attendant revenue — would drive up Apple's earnings, and possibly stock price, in the same quarter the product is introduced, according to several news reports that came out earlier this week. Apple and other tech companies have been lobbying for a rewrite of the so-called multiple deliverables, or bundling, rule for quite some time. They argue that current U.S. generally accepted accounting principles make it hard for product makers to reap the full reward of successful products quickly. That's mainly because U.S. GAAP is stringent about when and how companies recognize revenue generated by software sales. "The requirements are that when you sell more than one product or service at one time, you have to break down the total sale value in[to] individual pieces. Establishing the individual values under U.S. GAAP is solely a function of how the company prices those products and services over time," PricewaterhouseCoopers's Dean Petracca told CFO in an earlier interview. Contracts typically include such multiple "deliverables" as hardware, software, professional services, maintenance, and support — all of which are valued and accounted for differently. The complex accounting rule has left many product makers waiting for a chance to voice their displeasure at the standards, and the most recent comment period saw such giants as Xerox, IBM, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard — as well as relative newcomers like Palm and Tivo — make their case to FASB. In all, 34 companies wrote to FASB during the month-long comment period that ended in August to register their opinions on the accounting treatment of multiple elements. A broader revenue-recognition discussion paper was issued by FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board in December 2008 for a six-month comment period. The boards are currently reviewing the comments, and an exposure draft on revenue recognition, which is the penultimate step to a new global rule, is expected out next year. Regarding the issue of multiple deliverables, most technology companies would like to see FASB move closer to international standards with regard to bundled software, and drop the requirement for vendor-specific objective evidence. Under GAAP, VSOE of fair value is preferable when available, according to Sal Collemi, a senior manager at accounting and audit firm Rothstein Kass. Basically, VSOE is equivalent to the price charged by the vendor when a deliverable is sold separately — or if not sold separately, the price established by management for a separate transaction that is not likely to change, explains Collemi. Third-party evidence of fair value, such as prices charged by competitors, is acceptable if vendor-specific evidence is unavailable. Many technology companies argue that it is sometimes impossible to measure the fair value of a component that is not sold separately, but rather is an integral part of the product — as is the Apple software for the iPod series of products. At the same time, international financial reporting standards require companies to use the price regularly charged when an item is sold as the best evidence of fair value. The alternative approach, under IFRS, is the cost-plus margin, says Collemi. That is, the IFRS puts the onus on management to value a product component based on what it costs to manufacture the piece plus the profit-margin share built into the item. Management usually bases its valuation on historic sales as well as current market-established sale prices. The cost-plus margin is not allowed under GAAP. With respect to bundled components, the IFRS focuses on "the substance of the transaction and the thought process and ingredients that go into the transaction," contends Collemi, who says the standard's objective is to make economic sense out of the transaction. FASB's take on the subject is more conservative: the U.S. rule maker calls for objective evidence to establish value. Some critics say the IFRS approach invites abuse, because it's based on management assumptions. But Collemi contends that GAAP accounting is filled with rules and interpretations that require management estimates, and that the burden is on management to produce the correct numbers. What's more, auditors are in place to act as a backstop to verify the processes used to arrive at management estimates. "If management is following the spirit of the transaction and doing the right thing," adds Collemi, "then it is up to auditors to challenge the estimates." 原文地址：http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14440468/1/c_2984368?f=rsspage |
|
|
|
|
|
