|
|
|
|
| 極具爭議 電梯銷售收入何時確認? |
| 發布時間：2011/11/22 來源： 閱讀次數：472 |
| |
| 根據會計準則的規定，在日常經營活動中企業能確認為營業收入的內容可分為如下幾類：銷售商品收入、提供勞務收入、讓渡資產所有權收入、租賃收入和建造合同收入五類。其中，前三類在《14號——收入》準則中規范；租賃收入在《21號——租賃》準則中規范；建造合同收入則在《15號——建造合同》準則中進行了規范。準則的規定貌似清晰，但我們在實際執行過程中卻存在一些問題。 收入類別的邊界問題 比如我們經常遇到一些客戶，承接了一項工程，這些工程需要用到自己生產的產品，還需要對產品進行軟件系統集成，最后還要安裝該項產品，最后將工程移交給客戶，移交之后還可能對軟件按服務年限收取一定的服務費。 對于這個案例，我們到底如何來認定業務的性質，屬于是銷售產品還是提供勞務或是建造合同，甚至是長期租賃呢？實際上現在很多的系統集成并需要配備軟件的企業都存在我所述的問題，另外還有其他很多令人糾結的情況。 比如，銷售產品并附有安裝義務的合同如果安裝時間較長的話，到底是銷售合同還是安裝勞務合同？準則講解中舉例電梯銷售的安裝需要安裝完畢后才確認為銷售收入，但如果電梯安裝需要很長時間，是否可分開為先銷售電梯在發出存貨且對方驗收立即確認銷售收入，然后安裝勞務按照勞務提供進度確認勞務收入？如果合同中有相關分段收費時能否考慮？ 比如，軟件公司銷售為客戶的定制軟件，是屬于銷售產品，還是屬于提供勞務的合同？我們在九其軟件的招股書中發現是被認定為銷售商品，但金蝶軟件公司招股書則認為是提供勞務。 比如，某公司銷售產品，先收回制作成本，然后在以后年度每年以服務費形式分期收款，是應該當作分期收款的商品銷售，還是當作未來提供勞務收入，或者是說直接定義為租賃收入？租賃是融資租賃或者是經營租賃？ 如此等等，這些東西在我們作審計時常常會碰到，客戶有其自己的考慮，甚至經常會隨著自己的業績要求而改變確認方式，當然他們也會按自己的目的去改變合同條款，但交易實質往往并沒有任何區別。 收入確認條件的問題 任何一種收入的確認，基本都要滿足風險轉移、利益很可能流入和所有權與管理權轉移三個條件，另外就是收入和成本的可計量。歸類之后實質就是交易實質完成和可計量兩個問題。 對于交易實質完成的判斷，其實不是那么好判斷的，在日常中大家常常會用到的標準包括：法律形式和經驗判斷。法律上會有一些條款，但這些條款哪些是實質條款，哪些是常識條款？比如規定由退貨權，在銷售貨物之后的退貨權期間到底能不能因此判斷風險義務轉移？法律條文和經驗常常是不一致的。又比如我前面舉例電梯銷售，如果合同中規定了電梯款和安裝費款，并且按照經驗發出電梯都能安裝成功，那么發出電梯是否可以確認銷售收入？ 對于可靠計量的問題，也有一些疑慮。很多時候企業外購產品給客戶系統集成后去安裝中央控制室，如果當作安裝勞務的形式或建造合同形式，確認進度又可能不一致。首先，如果確認為勞務合同的話，那么設備銷售款我認為必單獨分離出來確認銷售收入；如果確認為建造合同的話，設備會進入建造合同總額，但一定不能按照工程成本投入量來確認完工進度，否則完工進度可操縱性太強。 由于很多問題我都沒想清楚，可能我這個日記會讓一些人本來覺得清楚得，搞得跟我一樣糊涂，我先表示歉意，但我覺得先被我弄糊涂了，如果再有個明白人來指點清理一下，可能大家都會比以前更清楚。 網友熱評： aegis：收入確認的事，干活時不能深究，深究時不能干活。 杜撰：1、比如，銷售產品并附有安裝義務的合同如果安裝時間較長的話，到底是銷售合同還是安裝勞務合同？準則講解中舉例電梯銷售的安裝需要安裝完畢后才確認為銷售收入，但如果電梯安裝需要很長時間，是否可分開為先銷售電梯在發出存貨且對方驗收立即確認銷售收入，然后安裝勞務按照勞務提供進度確認勞務收入？如果合同中有相關分段收費時能否考慮？ 很多客戶簽該類合同的時候，一般都會約定，貨到了，簽收之后付款如70%，安裝完畢25%（或+運行合格后合計），保修期滿最后付5%；我認為可以分別銷貨和安裝確認。 2、比如，軟件公司銷售為客戶的定制軟件，是屬于銷售產品，還是屬于提供勞務的合同？我們在九其軟件的招股書中發現是被認定為銷售商品，但金蝶軟件公司招股書則認為是提供勞務。 按《企業會計準則應用指南-收入》五提供勞務收入確認條件的具體應用，（三）為特定客戶開發軟件的收費，在資產負債表日根據開發的完工程度確認收入。 3、比如，某公司銷售產品，先收回制作成本，然后在以后年度每年以服務費形式分期收款，是應該當作分期收款的商品銷售，還是當作未來提供勞務收入，或者是說直接定義為租賃收入？租賃是融資租賃或者是經營租賃？ 我覺得要視先收回制作成本占總應當收款比例確認收入確認條件。如果大部分都收回了，且確實提供了后續服務，那么分別銷售商品跟服務費確認。如果僅合同條款規定是服務費收入，但不需要或僅需要提供非常少的服務，那么不應當確認服務費收入。 國稅函[1998]390號 國家稅務總局關于電梯保養、維修收入征稅問題 花農：推薦一個專業網站，http://www.revenuerecognition.com/ linwq1284： 關于電梯銷售收入確認時點問題 電梯企業現狀： 電梯安裝，現在有兩種，一種必須國家檢驗機關，驗收合格才能投入使用。另一種不是在公共場合，包括高層住宅，只要廠檢就可以。 電梯企業，生產要一個生產特殊資質，安裝又要安裝資質，并且在各地安裝公司都要在各地有資質或備案，如果沒有資質是不能安裝。往往一個集團內是一個子公司生產電梯，另外各地有數個子公司是安裝公司。 由于資質原因，電梯企業，除了一部分是附安裝條款，但是絕大部分銷售合同與安裝合同是分開的。 往往是： 銷售合同是生產企業與客戶簽訂買斷合同，但是仍可能10%款項要等安裝調試完才付，主要原因是客戶擔心零配件調換。電梯款往往是幾十萬甚至上百萬元。 安裝合同，安裝企業與客戶簽合同，付款按簽合同、安裝完成等幾個階段收費，安裝費一般也不高，幾萬元。 兩個合并范圍內獨立的公司，簽訂獨立的合同。 這時候收入確認的標準問題： 1、是否要等安裝完成確認收入？理由：從合并層面，兩個子公司視同一個主體兩個部門。因為各個部門你可以操縱，并且電梯只有安裝完客戶才能使用。 2、各自確認，即生產企業按發貨驗收確認收入，安裝按完工百分比確認收入。理由各自都符合收入確認原則。 但是這樣做，監管層到時會說你操縱利潤，不謹慎。又是會計師的責任！ 3、另外安裝按完工百分比，其實也很難，因為每個合同只有幾萬元，沒辦法分開到底是要如何分攤安裝工人的工資，因為安裝工人不是有活才付工資，沒有活也要付工資。 對上述問題1、2，請各位大蝦給予指正，也敬請財政部準則專家給予指導。 簡單思考： 這些要從業務形式分析業務實質來判斷，再根據準則的要求來確認，這是需要專業判斷。 也許從幾個方面都有道理，但實質還應是差異不大的。實務還是需要把各種業務形式理清楚，分類梳理，找出業務關健或實質地方，根據準則的要求進行專業判斷！ 如電梯銷售，主要看安裝是不是銷售的必要條件之一（不管是幾個合同，幾家單位及如何付款）。 如軟件，主要是判斷軟件的所有權（終身使用權）和有限期間使用權，研發、定制、安裝及后續服務等，按要合同主要部分、限制條款等規定，根據準則的風險、計量、分期要求來判斷。 飛草：會計第一大問題。 下面這篇文章對理解這個問題有幫助： 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
