Respuestas al proyecto de ingresos del IASB
Comments on Discussion Paper Preliminary Views on Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IASB discussion paper Preliminary Views on Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers. The Mexican Institute of Public Accountants, through the Commission for the Analysis and Dissemination of Financial Reporting Standards, has analyzed the Discussion Paper Preliminary Views on Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers. The following are our related comments:
Chapter 2 Contract-based revenue recognition principle
1. Do you agree with the boards’ proposal to base a single revenue recognition principle on changes in an entity’s contract asset or contract liability? Why or why not? If not, how would you address the inconsistency in existing standards that arises from having different revenue recognition principles?
Response: We agree with the basic revenue recognition principle, based on changes in assets and liabilities derived from a contract. The principle has logic and coherence, simplicity and breadth enough to contain – by means of a model – the greater part of revenue recognition transactions. The model will serve as an overall principle to unify criteria and have a consistent basis of application. These characteristics assure that the model will be comprehensible and by its breadth, will encompass all the transactions that involve revenue recognition, and could take the place of the greater part of current standards, in relation to revenue recognition.
2. Are there any types of contracts for which the board’s proposed principle would not provide decision-useful information? Please provide examples and explain why. What alternative principle do you think is more useful in those examples?
Response: The types of contracts in which the basic principle will not provide information useful for decision-making, are the contracts already mentioned in the draft, such as: financial instruments, insurance contracts, leasing agreements. Other contracts, such as trust agreements, royalties and dividends could be added.
3. Do you agree with the boards’ definition of a contract? Why or why not? Please provide examples of jurisdictions or circumstances in which it would be difficult to apply that definition.
Response: Yes, the definition meets the terms given by dictionaries and by international law.