An entity, a real estate developer, enters into a contract with a customer for the sale of a building for CU1 million.1 The customer intends to open a restaurant in the building. The building is located in an area where new restaurants face high levels of competition and the customer has little experience in the restaurant industry.

The customer pays a non-refundable deposit of CU50,000 at inception of the contract and enters into a long-term financing agreement with the entity for the remaining 95 per cent of the promised consideration. The financing arrangement is provided on a non-recourse basis, which means that if the customer defaults, the entity can repossess the building, but cannot seek further compensation from the customer, even if the collateral does not cover the full value of the amount owed. The entity’s cost of the building is CU600,000. The customer obtains control of the building at contract inception.

In assessing whether the contract meets the criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15, the entity concludes that the criterion in paragraph 9(e) of IFRS 15 is not met because it is not probable that the entity will collect the consideration to which it is entitled in exchange for the transfer of the building. In reaching this conclusion, the entity observes that the customer’s ability and intention to pay may be in doubt because of the following factors:

Because the criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15 are not met, the entity applies paragraphs 15⁠–⁠16 of IFRS 15 to determine the accounting for the non-refundable deposit of CU50,000. The entity observes that none of the events described in paragraph 15 have occurred—that is, the entity has not received substantially all of the consideration and it has not terminated the contract. Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 16, the entity accounts for the non-refundable CU50,000 payment as a deposit liability. The entity continues to account for the initial deposit, as well as any future payments of principal and interest, as a deposit liability, until such time that the entity concludes that the criteria in paragraph 9 are met (ie the entity is able to conclude that it is probable that the entity will collect the consideration) or one of the events in paragraph 15 has occurred. The entity continues to assess the contract in accordance with paragraph 14 to determine whether the criteria in paragraph 9 are subsequently met or whether the events in paragraph 15 of IFRS 15 have occurred.

An entity sells 1,000 units of a prescription drug to a customer for promised consideration of CU1 million. This is the entity’s first sale to a customer in a new region, which is experiencing significant economic difficulty. Thus, the entity expects that it will not be able to collect from the customer the full amount of the promised consideration. Despite the possibility of not collecting the full amount, the entity expects the region’s economy to recover over the next two to three years and determines that a relationship with the customer could help it to forge relationships with other potential customers in the region.

When assessing whether the criterion in paragraph 9(e) of IFRS 15 is met, the entity also considers paragraphs 47 and 52(b) of IFRS 15. Based on the assessment of the facts and circumstances, the entity determines that it expects to provide a price concession and accept a lower amount of consideration from the customer. Accordingly, the entity concludes that the transaction price is not CU1 million and, therefore, the promised consideration is variable. The entity estimates the variable consideration and determines that it expects to be entitled to CU400,000.

The entity considers the customer’s ability and intention to pay the consideration and concludes that even though the region is experiencing economic difficulty, it is probable that it will collect CU400,000 from the customer. Consequently, the entity concludes that the criterion in paragraph 9(e) of IFRS 15 is met based on an estimate of variable consideration of CU400,000. In addition, on the basis of an evaluation of the contract terms and other facts and circumstances, the entity concludes that the other criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15 are also met. Consequently, the entity accounts for the contract with the customer in accordance with the requirements in IFRS 15.

An entity, a hospital, provides medical services to an uninsured patient in the emergency room. The entity has not previously provided medical services to this patient but is required by law to provide medical services to all emergency room patients. Because of the patient’s condition upon arrival at the hospital, the entity provides the services immediately and, therefore, before the entity can determine whether the patient is committed to perform its obligations under the contract in exchange for the medical services provided. Consequently, the contract does not meet the criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15 and, in accordance with paragraph 14 of IFRS 15, the entity will continue to assess its conclusion based on updated facts and circumstances.

After providing services, the entity obtains additional information about the patient including a review of the services provided, standard rates for such services and the patient’s ability and intention to pay the entity for the services provided. During the review, the entity notes its standard rate for the services provided in the emergency room is CU10,000. The entity also reviews the patient’s information and to be consistent with its policies designates the patient to a customer class based on the entity’s assessment of the patient’s ability and intention to pay.

Before reassessing whether the criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15 have been met, the entity considers paragraphs 47 and 52(b) of IFRS 15. Although the standard rate for the services is CU10,000 (which may be the amount invoiced to the patient), the entity expects to accept a lower amount of consideration in exchange for the services. Accordingly, the entity concludes that the transaction price is not CU10,000 and, therefore, the promised consideration is variable. The entity reviews its historical cash collections from this customer class and other relevant information about the patient. The entity estimates the variable consideration and determines that it expects to be entitled to CU1,000.

In accordance with paragraph 9(e) of IFRS 15, the entity evaluates the patient’s ability and intention to pay (ie the credit risk of the patient). On the basis of its collection history from patients in this customer class, the entity concludes it is probable that the entity will collect CU1,000 (which is the estimate of variable consideration). In addition, on the basis of an assessment of the contract terms and other facts and circumstances, the entity concludes that the other criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15 are also met. Consequently, the entity accounts for the contract with the patient in accordance with the requirements in IFRS 15.

An entity licences a patent to a customer in exchange for a usage-based royalty. At contract inception, the contract meets all the criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15 and the entity accounts for the contract with the customer in accordance with the requirements in IFRS 15. The entity recognises revenue when the customer’s subsequent usage occurs in accordance with paragraph B63 of IFRS 15.

Throughout the first year of the contract, the customer provides quarterly reports of usage and pays within the agreed-upon period.

During the second year of the contract, the customer continues to use the entity’s patent, but the customer’s financial condition declines. The customer’s current access to credit and available cash on hand are limited. The entity continues to recognise revenue on the basis of the customer’s usage throughout the second year. The customer pays the first quarter’s royalties but makes nominal payments for the usage of the patent in Quarters 2⁠–⁠4. The entity accounts for any impairment of the existing receivable in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments.

During the third year of the contract, the customer continues to use the entity’s patent. However, the entity learns that the customer has lost access to credit and its major customers and thus the customer’s ability to pay significantly deteriorates. The entity therefore concludes that it is unlikely that the customer will be able to make any further royalty payments for ongoing usage of the entity’s patent. As a result of this significant change in facts and circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 13 of IFRS 15, the entity reassesses the criteria in paragraph 9 of IFRS 15 and determines that they are not met because it is no longer probable that the entity will collect the consideration to which it will be entitled. Accordingly, the entity does not recognise any further revenue associated with the customer’s future usage of its patent. The entity accounts for any impairment of the existing receivable in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments.

An entity promises to sell 120 products to a customer for CU12,000 (CU100 per product). The products are transferred to the customer over a six-month period. The entity transfers control of each product at a point in time. After the entity has transferred control of 60 products to the customer, the contract is modified to require the delivery of an additional 30 products (a total of 150 identical products) to the customer. The additional 30 products were not included in the initial contract.

On 1 July 20X0, an entity promises to transfer two distinct products to a customer. Product X transfers to the customer at contract inception and Product Y transfers on 31 March 20X1. The consideration promised by the customer includes fixed consideration of CU1,000 and variable consideration that is estimated to be CU200. The entity includes its estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price because it concludes that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in cumulative revenue recognised will not occur when the uncertainty is resolved. [Refer:paragraph 56]

The transaction price of CU1,200 is allocated equally to the performance obligation for Product X and the performance obligation for Product Y. This is because both products have the same stand-alone selling prices and the variable consideration does not meet the criteria in paragraph 85 that requires allocation of the variable consideration to one but not both of the performance obligations.

When Product X transfers to the customer at contract inception, the entity recognises revenue of CU600.

On 30 November 20X0, the scope of the contract is modified to include the promise to transfer Product Z (in addition to the undelivered Product Y) to the customer on 30 June 20X1 and the price of the contract is increased by CU300 (fixed consideration), which does not represent the stand-alone selling price of Product Z. The stand-alone selling price of Product Z is the same as the stand-alone selling prices of Products X and Y.

The entity accounts for the modification as if it were the termination of the existing contract and the creation of a new contract. This is because the remaining Products Y and Z are distinct from Product X, which had transferred to the customer before the modification, and the promised consideration for the additional Product Z does not represent its stand-alone selling price. Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 21(a) of IFRS 15, the consideration to be allocated to the remaining performance obligations comprises the consideration that had been allocated to the performance obligation for Product Y (which is measured at an allocated transaction price amount of CU600) and the consideration promised in the modification (fixed consideration of CU300). The transaction price for the modified contract is CU900 and that amount is allocated equally to the performance obligation for Product Y and the performance obligation for Product Z (ie CU450 is allocated to each performance obligation).

After the modification but before the delivery of Products Y and Z, the entity revises its estimate of the amount of variable consideration to which it expects to be entitled to CU240 (rather than the previous estimate of CU200). The entity concludes that the change in estimate of the variable consideration can be included in the transaction price, because it is highly probable that a significant reversal in cumulative revenue recognised will not occur when the uncertainty is resolved. Even though the modification was accounted for as if it were the termination of the existing contract and the creation of a new contract in accordance with paragraph 21(a) of IFRS 15, the increase in the transaction price of CU40 is attributable to variable consideration promised before the modification. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 90 of IFRS 15, the change in the transaction price is allocated to the performance obligations for Product X and Product Y on the same basis as at contract inception. Consequently, the entity recognises revenue of CU20 for Product X in the period in which the change in the transaction price occurs. Because Product Y had not transferred to the customer before the contract modification, the change in the transaction price that is attributable to Product Y is allocated to the remaining performance obligations at the time of the contract modification. This is consistent with the accounting that would have been required by paragraph 21(a) of IFRS 15 if that amount of variable consideration had been estimated and included in the transaction price at the time of the contract modification.

The entity also allocates the CU20 increase in the transaction price for the modified contract equally to the performance obligations for Product Y and Product Z. This is because the products have the same stand-alone selling prices and the variable consideration does not meet the criteria in paragraph 85 that require allocation of the variable consideration to one but not both of the performance obligations. Consequently, the amount of the transaction price allocated to the performance obligations for Product Y and Product Z increases by CU10 to CU460 each.

On 31 March 20X1, Product Y is transferred to the customer and the entity recognises revenue of CU460. On 30 June 20X1, Product Z is transferred to the customer and the entity recognises revenue of CU460.

An entity enters into a three-year contract to clean a customer’s offices on a weekly basis. The customer promises to pay CU100,000 per year. The stand-alone selling price of the services at contract inception is CU100,000 per year. The entity recognises revenue of CU100,000 per year during the first two years of providing services. At the end of the second year, the contract is modified and the fee for the third year is reduced to CU80,000. In addition, the customer agrees to extend the contract for three additional years for consideration of CU200,000 payable in three equal annual instalments of CU66,667 at the beginning of years 4, 5 and 6. After the modification, the contract has four years remaining in exchange for total consideration of CU280,000. The stand-alone selling price of the services at the beginning of the third year is CU80,000 per year. The entity’s stand-alone selling price at the beginning of the third year, multiplied by the remaining number of years to provide services, is deemed to be an appropriate estimate of the stand-alone selling price of the multi-year contract (ie the stand-alone selling price is 4 years × CU80,000 per year = CU320,000).

At contract inception, the entity assesses that each week of cleaning service is distinct in accordance with paragraph 27 of IFRS 15. Notwithstanding that each week of cleaning service is distinct, the entity accounts for the cleaning contract as a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) of IFRS 15. This is because the weekly cleaning services are a series of distinct services that are substantially the same and have the same pattern of transfer to the customer (the services transfer to the customer over time and use the same method to measure progress—that is, a time‑based measure of progress).

At the date of the modification, the entity assesses the remaining services to be provided and concludes that they are distinct. However, the amount of remaining consideration to be paid (CU280,000) does not reflect the stand-alone selling price of the services to be provided (CU320,000).

Consequently, the entity accounts for the modification in accordance with paragraph 21(a) of IFRS 15 as a termination of the original contract and the creation of a new contract with consideration of CU280,000 for four years of cleaning service. The entity recognises revenue of CU70,000 per year (CU280,000 ÷ 4 years) as the services are provided over the remaining four years.

An entity, a construction company, enters into a contract to construct a commercial building for a customer on customer-owned land for promised consideration of CU1 million and a bonus of CU200,000 if the building is completed within 24 months. The entity accounts for the promised bundle of goods and services as a single performance obligation satisfied over time in accordance with paragraph 35(b) of IFRS 15 because the customer controls the building during construction. At the inception of the contract, the entity expects the following:

At contract inception, the entity excludes the CU200,000 bonus from the transaction price because it cannot conclude that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised will not occur. Completion of the building is highly susceptible to factors outside the entity’s influence, including weather and regulatory approvals. In addition, the entity has limited experience with similar types of contracts.

The entity determines that the input measure, on the basis of costs incurred, provides an appropriate measure of progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. By the end of the first year, the entity has satisfied 60 per cent of its performance obligation on the basis of costs incurred to date (CU420,000) relative to total expected costs (CU700,000). The entity reassesses the variable consideration and concludes that the amount is still constrained in accordance with paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15. Consequently, the cumulative revenue and costs recognised for the first year are as follows:

In the first quarter of the second year, the parties to the contract agree to modify the contract by changing the floor plan of the building. As a result, the fixed consideration and expected costs increase by CU150,000 and CU120,000, respectively. Total potential consideration after the modification is CU1,350,000 (CU1,150,000 fixed consideration + CU200,000 completion bonus). In addition, the allowable time for achieving the CU200,000 bonus is extended by 6 months to 30 months from the original contract inception date. At the date of the modification, on the basis of its experience and the remaining work to be performed, which is primarily inside the building and not subject to weather conditions, the entity concludes that it is highly probable that including the bonus in the transaction price will not result in a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised in accordance with paragraph 56 of IFRS 15 and includes the CU200,000 in the transaction price. In assessing the contract modification, the entity evaluates paragraph 27(b) of IFRS 15 and concludes (on the basis of the factors in paragraph 29 of IFRS 15) that the remaining goods and services to be provided using the modified contract are not distinct from the goods and services transferred on or before the date of contract modification; that is, the contract remains a single performance obligation.

Consequently, the entity accounts for the contract modification as if it were part of the original contract (in accordance with paragraph 21(b) of IFRS 15). The entity updates its measure of progress and estimates that it has satisfied 51.2 per cent of its performance obligation (CU420,000 actual costs incurred ÷ CU820,000 total expected costs). The entity recognises additional revenue of CU91,200 [(51.2 per cent complete × CU1,350,000 modified transaction price) – CU600,000 revenue recognised to date] at the date of the modification as a cumulative catch-up adjustment.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to construct a building on customer-owned land. The contract states that the customer will provide the entity with access to the land within 30 days of contract inception. However, the entity was not provided access until 120 days after contract inception because of storm damage to the site that occurred after contract inception. The contract specifically identifies any delay (including force majeure) in the entity’s access to customer-owned land as an event that entitles the entity to compensation that is equal to actual costs incurred as a direct result of the delay. The entity is able to demonstrate that the specific direct costs were incurred as a result of the delay in accordance with the terms of the contract and prepares a claim. The customer initially disagreed with the entity’s claim.

The entity assesses the legal basis of the claim and determines, on the basis of the underlying contractual terms, that it has enforceable rights. Consequently, it accounts for the claim as a contract modification in accordance with paragraphs 18⁠–⁠21 of IFRS 15. The modification does not result in any additional goods and services being provided to the customer. In addition, all of the remaining goods and services after the modification are not distinct and form part of a single performance obligation. Consequently, the entity accounts for the modification in accordance with paragraph 21(b) of IFRS 15 by updating the transaction price and the measure of progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. The entity considers the constraint on estimates of variable consideration in paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15 when estimating the transaction price.

An entity, a manufacturer, sells a product to a distributor (ie its customer) who will then resell it to an end customer.

An entity enters into a contract to provide monthly payroll processing services to a customer for one year.

The promised payroll processing services are accounted for as a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) of IFRS 15. The performance obligation is satisfied over time in accordance with paragraph 35(a) of IFRS 15 because the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits of the entity’s performance in processing each payroll transaction as and when each transaction is processed. The fact that another entity would not need to re‑perform payroll processing services for the service that the entity has provided to date also demonstrates that the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits of the entity’s performance as the entity performs. (The entity disregards any practical limitations on transferring the remaining performance obligation, including setup activities that would need to be undertaken by another entity.) The entity recognises revenue over time by measuring its progress towards complete satisfaction of that performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 39⁠–⁠45 and B14⁠–⁠B19 of IFRS 15.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to provide a consulting service that results in the entity providing a professional opinion to the customer. The professional opinion relates to facts and circumstances that are specific to the customer. If the customer were to terminate the consulting contract for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised, the contract requires the customer to compensate the entity for its costs incurred plus a 15 per cent margin. The 15 per cent margin approximates the profit margin that the entity earns from similar contracts.

The entity considers the criterion in paragraph 35(a) of IFRS 15 and the requirements in paragraphs B3 and B4 of IFRS 15 to determine whether the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits of the entity’s performance. If the entity were to be unable to satisfy its obligation and the customer hired another consulting firm to provide the opinion, the other consulting firm would need to substantially re‑perform the work that the entity had completed to date, because the other consulting firm would not have the benefit of any work in progress performed by the entity. The nature of the professional opinion is such that the customer will receive the benefits of the entity’s performance only when the customer receives the professional opinion. Consequently, the entity concludes that the criterion in paragraph 35(a) of IFRS 15 is not met.

However, the entity’s performance obligation meets the criterion in paragraph 35(c) of IFRS 15 and is a performance obligation satisfied over time because of both of the following factors:

Consequently, the entity recognises revenue over time by measuring the progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 39⁠–⁠45 and B14⁠–⁠B19 of IFRS 15.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer, a government agency, to build a specialised satellite. The entity builds satellites for various customers, such as governments and commercial entities. The design and construction of each satellite differ substantially, on the basis of each customer’s needs and the type of technology that is incorporated into the satellite.

At contract inception, the entity assesses whether its performance obligation to build the satellite is a performance obligation satisfied over time in accordance with paragraph 35 of IFRS 15.

As part of that assessment, the entity considers whether the satellite in its completed state will have an alternative use to the entity. Although the contract does not preclude the entity from directing the completed satellite to another customer, the entity would incur significant costs to rework the design and function of the satellite to direct that asset to another customer. Consequently, the asset has no alternative use to the entity (see paragraphs 35(c), 36 and B6⁠–⁠B8 of IFRS 15) because the customer-specific design of the satellite limits the entity’s practical ability to readily direct the satellite to another customer.

For the entity’s performance obligation to be satisfied over time when building the satellite, paragraph 35(c) of IFRS 15 also requires the entity to have an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date. This condition is not illustrated in this example.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to build an item of equipment. The payment schedule in the contract specifies that the customer must make an advance payment at contract inception of 10 per cent of the contract price, regular payments throughout the construction period (amounting to 50 per cent of the contract price) and a final payment of 40 per cent of the contract price after construction is completed and the equipment has passed the prescribed performance tests. The payments are non-refundable unless the entity fails to perform as promised. If the customer terminates the contract, the entity is entitled only to retain any progress payments received from the customer. The entity has no further rights to compensation from the customer.

At contract inception, the entity assesses whether its performance obligation to build the equipment is a performance obligation satisfied over time in accordance with paragraph 35 of IFRS 15.

As part of that assessment, the entity considers whether it has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date in accordance with paragraphs 35(c), 37 and B9⁠–⁠B13 of IFRS 15 if the customer were to terminate the contract for reasons other than the entity’s failure to perform as promised. Even though the payments made by the customer are non-refundable, the cumulative amount of those payments is not expected, at all times throughout the contract, to at least correspond to the amount that would be necessary to compensate the entity for performance completed to date. This is because at various times during construction the cumulative amount of consideration paid by the customer might be less than the selling price of the partially completed item of equipment at that time. Consequently, the entity does not have a right to payment for performance completed to date.

Because the entity does not have a right to payment for performance completed to date, the entity’s performance obligation is not satisfied over time in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of IFRS 15. Accordingly, the entity does not need to assess whether the equipment would have an alternative use to the entity. The entity also concludes that it does not meet the criteria in paragraph 35(a) or (b) of IFRS 15 and thus, the entity accounts for the construction of the equipment as a performance obligation satisfied at a point in time in accordance with paragraph 38 of IFRS 15.

An entity is developing a multi-unit residential complex. A customer enters into a binding sales contract with the entity for a specified unit that is under construction. Each unit has a similar floor plan and is of a similar size, but other attributes of the units are different (for example, the location of the unit within the complex).

An entity, an owner and manager of health clubs, enters into a contract with a customer for one year of access to any of its health clubs. The customer has unlimited use of the health clubs and promises to pay CU100 per month.

The entity determines that its promise to the customer is to provide a service of making the health clubs available for the customer to use as and when the customer wishes. This is because the extent to which the customer uses the health clubs does not affect the amount of the remaining goods and services to which the customer is entitled. The entity concludes that the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits of the entity’s performance as it performs by making the health clubs available. Consequently, the entity’s performance obligation is satisfied over time in accordance with paragraph 35(a) of IFRS 15.

The entity also determines that the customer benefits from the entity’s service of making the health clubs available evenly throughout the year. (That is, the customer benefits from having the health clubs available, regardless of whether the customer uses it or not.) Consequently, the entity concludes that the best measure of progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation over time is a time-based measure and it recognises revenue on a straight-line basis throughout the year at CU100 per month.

In November 20X2, an entity contracts with a customer to refurbish a 3-storey building and install new elevators for total consideration of CU5 million. The promised refurbishment service, including the installation of elevators, is a single performance obligation satisfied over time. Total expected costs are CU4 million, including CU1.5 million for the elevators. The entity determines that it acts as a principal in accordance with paragraphs B34⁠–⁠B38 of IFRS 15, because it obtains control of the elevators before they are transferred to the customer.

A summary of the transaction price and expected costs is as follows:

The entity uses an input method based on costs incurred to measure its progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation. The entity assesses whether the costs incurred to procure the elevators are proportionate to the entity’s progress in satisfying the performance obligation, in accordance with paragraph B19 of IFRS 15. The customer obtains control of the elevators when they are delivered to the site in December 20X2, although the elevators will not be installed until June 20X3. The costs to procure the elevators (CU1.5 million) are significant relative to the total expected costs to completely satisfy the performance obligation (CU4 million). The entity is not involved in designing or manufacturing the elevators.

The entity concludes that including the costs to procure the elevators in the measure of progress would overstate the extent of the entity’s performance. Consequently, in accordance with paragraph B19 of IFRS 15, the entity adjusts its measure of progress to exclude the costs to procure the elevators from the measure of costs incurred and from the transaction price. The entity recognises revenue for the transfer of the elevators in an amount equal to the costs to procure the elevators (ie at a zero margin).

As of 31 December 20X2 the entity observes that:

Consequently, at 31 December 20X2, the entity recognises the following:

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to build an asset for CU1 million. In addition, the terms of the contract include a penalty of CU100,000 if the construction is not completed within three months of a date specified in the contract.

The entity concludes that the consideration promised in the contract includes a fixed amount of CU900,000 and a variable amount of CU100,000 (arising from the penalty).

The entity estimates the variable consideration in accordance with paragraphs 50⁠–⁠54 of IFRS 15 and considers the requirements in paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15 on constraining estimates of variable consideration.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to build a customised asset. The promise to transfer the asset is a performance obligation that is satisfied over time. The promised consideration is CU2.5 million, but that amount will be reduced or increased depending on the timing of completion of the asset. Specifically, for each day after 31 March 20X7 that the asset is incomplete, the promised consideration is reduced by CU10,000. For each day before 31 March 20X7 that the asset is complete, the promised consideration increases by CU10,000.

In addition, upon completion of the asset, a third party will inspect the asset and assign a rating based on metrics that are defined in the contract. If the asset receives a specified rating, the entity will be entitled to an incentive bonus of CU150,000.

In determining the transaction price, the entity prepares a separate estimate for each element of variable consideration to which the entity will be entitled using the estimation methods described in paragraph 53 of IFRS 15:

The entity considers the requirements in paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15 on constraining estimates of variable consideration to determine whether the entity should include some or all of its estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price.

An entity enters into 100 contracts with customers. Each contract includes the sale of one product for CU100 (100 total products × CU100 = CU10,000 total consideration). Cash is received when control of a product transfers. The entity’s customary business practice is to allow a customer to return any unused product within 30 days and receive a full refund. The entity’s cost of each product is CU60.

The entity applies the requirements in IFRS 15 to the portfolio of 100 contracts because it reasonably expects that, in accordance with paragraph 4, the effects on the financial statements from applying these requirements to the portfolio would not differ materially from applying the requirements to the individual contracts within the portfolio.

Because the contract allows a customer to return the products, the consideration received from the customer is variable. To estimate the variable consideration to which the entity will be entitled, the entity decides to use the expected value method (see paragraph 53(a) of IFRS 15) because it is the method that the entity expects to better predict the amount of consideration to which it will be entitled. Using the expected value method, the entity estimates that 97 products will not be returned.

The entity also considers the requirements in paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15 on constraining estimates of variable consideration to determine whether the estimated amount of variable consideration of CU9,700 (CU100 × 97 products not expected to be returned) can be included in the transaction price. The entity considers the factors in paragraph 57 of IFRS 15 and determines that although the returns are outside the entity’s influence, it has significant experience in estimating returns for this product and customer class. In addition, the uncertainty will be resolved within a short time frame (ie the 30‑day return period). Thus, the entity concludes that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the cumulative amount of revenue recognised (ie CU9,700) will not occur as the uncertainty is resolved (ie over the return period).

The entity estimates that the costs of recovering the products will be immaterial and expects that the returned products can be resold at a profit.

Upon transfer of control of the 100 products, the entity does not recognise revenue for the three products that it expects to be returned. Consequently, in accordance with paragraphs 55 and B21 of IFRS 15, the entity recognises the following:

An entity enters into a contract with a customer, a distributor, on 1 December 20X7. The entity transfers 1,000 products at contract inception for a price stated in the contract of CU100 per product (total consideration is CU100,000). Payment from the customer is due when the customer sells the products to the end customers. The entity’s customer generally sells the products within 90 days of obtaining them. Control of the products transfers to the customer on 1 December 20X7.

On the basis of its past practices and to maintain its relationship with the customer, the entity anticipates granting a price concession to its customer because this will enable the customer to discount the product and thereby move the product through the distribution chain. Consequently, the consideration in the contract is variable.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer on 1 January 20X8 to sell Product A for CU100 per unit. If the customer purchases more than 1,000 units of Product A in a calendar year, the contract specifies that the price per unit is retrospectively reduced to CU90 per unit. Consequently, the consideration in the contract is variable.

For the first quarter ended 31 March 20X8, the entity sells 75 units of Product A to the customer. The entity estimates that the customer’s purchases will not exceed the 1,000-unit threshold required for the volume discount in the calendar year.

The entity considers the requirements in paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15 on constraining estimates of variable consideration, including the factors in paragraph 57 of IFRS 15. The entity determines that it has significant experience with this product and with the purchasing pattern of the entity. Thus, the entity concludes that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the cumulative amount of revenue recognised (ie CU100 per unit) will not occur when the uncertainty is resolved (ie when the total amount of purchases is known). Consequently, the entity recognises revenue of CU7,500 (75 units × CU100 per unit) for the quarter ended 31 March 20X8.

In May 20X8, the entity’s customer acquires another company and in the second quarter ended 30 June 20X8 the entity sells an additional 500 units of Product A to the customer. In the light of the new fact, the entity estimates that the customer’s purchases will exceed the 1,000-unit threshold for the calendar year and therefore it will be required to retrospectively reduce the price per unit to CU90.

Consequently, the entity recognises revenue of CU44,250 for the quarter ended 30 June 20X8. That amount is calculated from CU45,000 for the sale of 500 units (500 units × CU90 per unit) less the change in transaction price of CU750 (75 units × CU10 price reduction) for the reduction of revenue relating to units sold for the quarter ended 31 March 20X8 (see paragraphs 87 and 88 of IFRS 15).

On 1 January 20X8, an entity enters into a contract with a client to provide asset management services for five years. The entity receives a two per cent quarterly management fee based on the client’s assets under management at the end of each quarter. In addition, the entity receives a performance-based incentive fee of 20 per cent of the fund’s return in excess of the return of an observable market index over the five-year period. Consequently, both the management fee and the performance fee in the contract are variable consideration.

The entity accounts for the services as a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) of IFRS 15, because it is providing a series of distinct services that are substantially the same and have the same pattern of transfer (the services transfer to the customer over time and use the same method to measure progress—that is, a time‑based measure of progress).

At contract inception, the entity considers the requirements in paragraphs 50⁠–⁠54 of IFRS 15 on estimating variable consideration and the requirements in paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15 on constraining estimates of variable consideration, including the factors in paragraph 57 of IFRS 15. The entity observes that the promised consideration is dependent on the market and thus is highly susceptible to factors outside the entity’s influence. In addition, the incentive fee has a large number and a broad range of possible consideration amounts. The entity also observes that although it has experience with similar contracts, that experience is of little predictive value in determining the future performance of the market. Therefore, at contract inception, the entity cannot conclude that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the cumulative amount of revenue recognised would not occur if the entity included its estimate of the management fee or the incentive fee in the transaction price.

At each reporting date, the entity updates its estimate of the transaction price. Consequently, at the end of each quarter, the entity concludes that it can include in the transaction price the actual amount of the quarterly management fee because the uncertainty is resolved. However, the entity concludes that it cannot include its estimate of the incentive fee in the transaction price at those dates. This is because there has not been a change in its assessment from contract inception—the variability of the fee based on the market index indicates that the entity cannot conclude that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the cumulative amount of revenue recognised would not occur if the entity included its estimate of the incentive fee in the transaction price. At 31 March 20X8, the client’s assets under management are CU100 million. Therefore, the resulting quarterly management fee and the transaction price is CU2 million.

At the end of each quarter, the entity allocates the quarterly management fee to the distinct services provided during the quarter in accordance with paragraphs 84(b) and 85 of IFRS 15. This is because the fee relates specifically to the entity’s efforts to transfer the services for that quarter, which are distinct from the services provided in other quarters, and the resulting allocation will be consistent with the allocation objective in paragraph 73 of IFRS 15. Consequently, the entity recognises CU2 million as revenue for the quarter ended 31 March 20X8.

An entity sells a product to a customer for CU121 that is payable 24 months after delivery. The customer obtains control of the product at contract inception. The contract permits the customer to return the product within 90 days. The product is new and the entity has no relevant historical evidence of product returns or other available market evidence.

The cash selling price of the product is CU100, which represents the amount that the customer would pay upon delivery for the same product sold under otherwise identical terms and conditions as at contract inception. The entity’s cost of the product is CU80.

The entity does not recognise revenue when control of the product transfers to the customer. This is because the existence of the right of return and the lack of relevant historical evidence means that the entity cannot conclude that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised will not occur in accordance with paragraphs 56⁠–⁠58 of IFRS 15. Consequently, revenue is recognised after three months when the right of return lapses.

The contract includes a significant financing component, in accordance with paragraphs 60⁠–⁠62 of IFRS 15. This is evident from the difference between the amount of promised consideration of CU121 and the cash selling price of CU100 at the date that the goods are transferred to the customer.

The contract includes an implicit interest rate of 10 per cent (ie the interest rate that over 24 months discounts the promised consideration of CU121 to the cash selling price of CU100). The entity evaluates the rate and concludes that it is commensurate with the rate that would be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the entity and its customer at contract inception. The following journal entries illustrate how the entity accounts for this contract in accordance with paragraphs B20⁠–⁠B27 of IFRS 15.

Until the entity receives the cash payment from the customer, interest revenue would be recognised in accordance with IFRS 9. In determining the effective interest rate in accordance with IFRS 9, the entity would consider the remaining contractual term.

An entity enters into a contract for the construction of a building that includes scheduled milestone payments for the performance by the entity throughout the contract term of three years. The performance obligation will be satisfied over time and the milestone payments are scheduled to coincide with the entity’s expected performance. The contract provides that a specified percentage of each milestone payment is to be withheld (ie retained) by the customer throughout the arrangement and paid to the entity only when the building is complete.

The entity concludes that the contract does not include a significant financing component. The milestone payments coincide with the entity’s performance and the contract requires amounts to be retained for reasons other than the provision of finance in accordance with paragraph 62(c) of IFRS 15. The withholding of a specified percentage of each milestone payment is intended to protect the customer from the contractor failing to adequately complete its obligations under the contract.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to sell equipment. Control of the equipment transfers to the customer when the contract is signed. The price stated in the contract is CU1 million plus a five per cent contractual rate of interest, payable in 60 monthly instalments of CU18,871.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to sell an asset. Control of the asset will transfer to the customer in two years (ie the performance obligation will be satisfied at a point in time). The contract includes two alternative payment options: payment of CU5,000 in two years when the customer obtains control of the asset or payment of CU4,000 when the contract is signed. The customer elects to pay CU4,000 when the contract is signed.

The entity concludes that the contract contains a significant financing component because of the length of time between when the customer pays for the asset and when the entity transfers the asset to the customer, as well as the prevailing interest rates in the market.

The interest rate implicit in the transaction is 11.8 per cent, which is the interest rate necessary to make the two alternative payment options economically equivalent. However, the entity determines that, in accordance with paragraph 64 of IFRS 15, the rate that should be used in adjusting the promised consideration is six per cent, which is the entity’s incremental borrowing rate.

The following journal entries illustrate how the entity would account for the significant financing component:

An entity, a technology product manufacturer, enters into a contract with a customer to provide global telephone technology support and repair coverage for three years along with its technology product. The customer purchases this support service at the time of buying the product. Consideration for the service is an additional CU300. Customers electing to buy this service must pay for it upfront (ie a monthly payment option is not available).

To determine whether there is a significant financing component in the contract, the entity considers the nature of the service being offered and the purpose of the payment terms. The entity charges a single upfront amount, not with the primary purpose of obtaining financing from the customer but, instead, to maximise profitability, taking into consideration the risks associated with providing the service. Specifically, if customers could pay monthly, they would be less likely to renew and the population of customers that continue to use the support service in the later years may become smaller and less diverse over time (ie customers that choose to renew historically are those that make greater use of the service, thereby increasing the entity’s costs). In addition, customers tend to use services more if they pay monthly rather than making an upfront payment. Finally, the entity would incur higher administration costs such as the costs related to administering renewals and collection of monthly payments.

In assessing the requirements in paragraph 62(c) of IFRS 15, the entity determines that the payment terms were structured primarily for reasons other than the provision of finance to the entity. The entity charges a single upfront amount for the services because other payment terms (such as a monthly payment plan) would affect the nature of the risks assumed by the entity to provide the service and may make it uneconomical to provide the service. As a result of its analysis, the entity concludes that there is not a significant financing component.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to provide a weekly service for one year. The contract is signed on 1 January 20X1 and work begins immediately. The entity concludes that the service is a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraph 22(b) of IFRS 15. This is because the entity is providing a series of distinct services that are substantially the same and have the same pattern of transfer (the services transfer to the customer over time and use the same method to measure progress—that is, a time-based measure of progress).

In exchange for the service, the customer promises 100 shares of its common stock per week of service (a total of 5,200 shares for the contract). The terms in the contract require that the shares must be paid upon the successful completion of each week of service.

The entity measures its progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation as each week of service is complete. To determine the transaction price (and the amount of revenue to be recognised), the entity measures the fair value of 100 shares that are received upon completion of each weekly service. The entity does not reflect any subsequent changes in the fair value of the shares received (or receivable) in revenue.

An entity that manufactures consumer goods enters into a one-year contract to sell goods to a customer that is a large global chain of retail stores. The customer commits to buy at least CU15 million of products during the year. The contract also requires the entity to make a non-refundable payment of CU1.5 million to the customer at the inception of the contract. The CU1.5 million payment will compensate the customer for the changes it needs to make to its shelving to accommodate the entity’s products.

The entity considers the requirements in paragraphs 70⁠–⁠72 of IFRS 15 and concludes that the payment to the customer is not in exchange for a distinct good or service that transfers to the entity. This is because the entity does not obtain control of any rights to the customer’s shelves. Consequently, the entity determines that, in accordance with paragraph 70 of IFRS 15, the CU1.5 million payment is a reduction of the transaction price.

The entity applies the requirements in paragraph 72 of IFRS 15 and concludes that the consideration payable is accounted for as a reduction in the transaction price when the entity recognises revenue for the transfer of the goods. Consequently, as the entity transfers goods to the customer, the entity reduces the transaction price for each good by 10 per cent (CU1.5 million ÷ CU15 million). Therefore, in the first month in which the entity transfers goods to the customer, the entity recognises revenue of CU1.8 million (CU2.0 million invoiced amount less CU0.2 million of consideration payable to the customer).

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to sell Products A, B and C in exchange for CU100. The entity will satisfy the performance obligations for each of the products at different points in time. The entity regularly sells Product A separately and therefore the stand-alone selling price is directly observable. The stand-alone selling prices of Products B and C are not directly observable.

Because the stand-alone selling prices for Products B and C are not directly observable, the entity must estimate them. To estimate the stand-alone selling prices, the entity uses the adjusted market assessment approach for Product B and the expected cost plus a margin approach for Product C. In making those estimates, the entity maximises the use of observable inputs (in accordance with paragraph 78 of IFRS 15). The entity estimates the stand-alone selling prices as follows:

The customer receives a discount for purchasing the bundle of goods because the sum of the stand-alone selling prices (CU150) exceeds the promised consideration (CU100). The entity considers whether it has observable evidence about the performance obligation to which the entire discount belongs (in accordance with paragraph 82 of IFRS 15) and concludes that it does not. Consequently, in accordance with paragraphs 76 and 81 of IFRS 15, the discount is allocated proportionately across Products A, B and C. The discount, and therefore the transaction price, is allocated as follows:

An entity regularly sells Products A, B and C individually, thereby establishing the following stand-alone selling prices:

In addition, the entity regularly sells Products B and C together for CU60.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer for two intellectual property licences (Licences X and Y), which the entity determines to represent two performance obligations each satisfied at a point in time. The stand-alone selling prices of Licences X and Y are CU800 and CU1,000, respectively.

An entity, a provider of consulting services, wins a competitive bid to provide consulting services to a new customer. The entity incurred the following costs to obtain the contract:

In accordance with paragraph 91 of IFRS 15, the entity recognises an asset for the CU10,000 incremental costs of obtaining the contract arising from the commissions to sales employees because the entity expects to recover those costs through future fees for the consulting services. The entity also pays discretionary annual bonuses to sales supervisors based on annual sales targets, overall profitability of the entity and individual performance evaluations. In accordance with paragraph 91 of IFRS 15, the entity does not recognise an asset for the bonuses paid to sales supervisors because the bonuses are not incremental to obtaining a contract. The amounts are discretionary and are based on other factors, including the profitability of the entity and the individuals’ performance. The bonuses are not directly attributable to identifiable contracts.

The entity observes that the external legal fees and travel costs would have been incurred regardless of whether the contract was obtained. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 93 of IFRS 15, those costs are recognised as expenses when incurred, unless they are within the scope of another Standard, in which case, the relevant provisions of that Standard apply.

An entity enters into a service contract to manage a customer’s information technology data centre for five years. The contract is renewable for subsequent one-year periods. The average customer term is seven years. The entity pays an employee a CU10,000 sales commission upon the customer signing the contract. Before providing the services, the entity designs and builds a technology platform for the entity’s internal use that interfaces with the customer’s systems. That platform is not transferred to the customer, but will be used to deliver services to the customer.

On 1 January 20X8, an entity enters into a contract to transfer Products A and B to a customer in exchange for CU1,000. The contract requires Product A to be delivered first and states that payment for the delivery of Product A is conditional on the delivery of Product B. In other words, the consideration of CU1,000 is due only after the entity has transferred both Products A and B to the customer. Consequently, the entity does not have a right to consideration that is unconditional (a receivable) until both Products A and B are transferred to the customer.

The entity identifies the promises to transfer Products A and B as performance obligations and allocates CU400 to the performance obligation to transfer Product A and CU600 to the performance obligation to transfer Product B on the basis of their relative stand-alone selling prices. The entity recognises revenue for each respective performance obligation when control of the product transfers to the customer.

The entity satisfies the performance obligation to transfer Product A:

The entity satisfies the performance obligation to transfer Product B and to recognise the unconditional right to consideration:

An entity enters into a contract with a customer on 1 January 20X9 to transfer products to the customer for CU150 per product. If the customer purchases more than 1 million products in a calendar year, the contract indicates that the price per unit is retrospectively reduced to CU125 per product.

Consideration is due when control of the products transfer to the customer. Therefore, the entity has an unconditional right to consideration (ie a receivable) for CU150 per product until the retrospective price reduction applies (ie after 1 million products are shipped).

In determining the transaction price, the entity concludes at contract inception that the customer will meet the 1 million products threshold and therefore estimates that the transaction price is CU125 per product. Consequently, upon the first shipment to the customer of 100 products the entity recognises the following:

The refund liability (see paragraph 55 of IFRS 15) represents a refund of CU25 per product, which is expected to be provided to the customer for the volume-based rebate (ie the difference between the CU150 price stated in the contract that the entity has an unconditional right to receive and the CU125 estimated transaction price).

An entity reports the following segments: consumer products, transportation and energy, in accordance with IFRS 8 Operating Segments. When the entity prepares its investor presentations, it disaggregates revenue into primary geographical markets, major product lines and timing of revenue recognition (ie goods transferred at a point in time or services transferred over time).

The entity determines that the categories used in the investor presentations can be used to meet the objective of the disaggregation disclosure requirement in paragraph 114 of IFRS 15, which is to disaggregate revenue from contracts with customers into categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors. The following table illustrates the disaggregation disclosure by primary geographical market, major product line and timing of revenue recognition, including a reconciliation of how the disaggregated revenue ties in with the consumer products, transportation and energy segments, in accordance with paragraph 115 of IFRS 15.

On 30 June 20X7, an entity enters into three contracts (Contracts A, B and C) with separate customers to provide services. Each contract has a two-year non-cancellable term. The entity considers the requirements in paragraphs 120⁠–⁠122 of IFRS 15 in determining the information in each contract to be included in the disclosure of the transaction price allocated to the remaining performance obligations at 31 December 20X7.

On 1 January 20X2, an entity enters into a contract with a customer to construct a commercial building for fixed consideration of CU10 million. The construction of the building is a single performance obligation that the entity satisfies over time. As of 31 December 20X2, the entity has recognised CU3.2 million of revenue. The entity estimates that construction will be completed in 20X3, but it is possible that the project will be completed in the first half of 20X4.

At 31 December 20X2, the entity discloses the amount of the transaction price that has not yet been recognised as revenue in its disclosure of the transaction price allocated to the remaining performance obligations. The entity also discloses an explanation of when the entity expects to recognise that amount as revenue. The explanation can be disclosed either on a quantitative basis using time bands that are most appropriate for the duration of the remaining performance obligation or by providing a qualitative explanation. Because the entity is uncertain about the timing of revenue recognition, the entity discloses this information qualitatively as follows:

‘As of 31 December 20X2, the aggregate amount of the transaction price allocated to the remaining performance obligation is CU6.8 million and the entity will recognise this revenue as the building is completed, which is expected to occur over the next 12⁠–⁠18 months.’

An entity, a manufacturer, provides its customer with a warranty with the purchase of a product. The warranty provides assurance that the product complies with agreed-upon specifications and will operate as promised for one year from the date of purchase. The contract also provides the customer with the right to receive up to 20 hours of training services on how to operate the product at no additional cost.

The entity assesses the goods and services in the contract to determine whether they are distinct and therefore give rise to separate performance obligations.

Finally, the entity assesses the promise to provide a warranty and observes that the warranty provides the customer with the assurance that the product will function as intended for one year. The entity concludes, in accordance with paragraphs B28⁠–⁠B33 of IFRS 15, that the warranty does not provide the customer with a good or service in addition to that assurance and, therefore, the entity does not account for it as a performance obligation. The entity accounts for the assurance-type warranty in accordance with the requirements in IAS 37.

As a result, the entity allocates the transaction price to the two performance obligations (the product and the training services) and recognises revenue when (or as) those performance obligations are satisfied.

An entity operates a website that enables customers to purchase goods from a range of suppliers who deliver the goods directly to the customers. Under the terms of the entity’s contracts with suppliers, when a good is purchased via the website, the entity is entitled to a commission that is equal to 10 per cent of the sales price. The entity’s website facilitates payment between the supplier and the customer at prices that are set by the supplier. The entity requires payment from customers before orders are processed and all orders are non-refundable. The entity has no further obligations to the customer after arranging for the products to be provided to the customer.

The website operated by the entity is a marketplace in which suppliers offer their goods and customers purchase the goods that are offered by the suppliers. Accordingly, the entity observes that the specified goods to be provided to customers that use the website are the goods provided by the suppliers, and no other goods or services are promised to customers by the entity.

The entity concludes that it does not control the specified goods before they are transferred to customers that order goods using the website. The entity does not at any time have the ability to direct the use of the goods transferred to customers. For example, it cannot direct the goods to parties other than the customer or prevent the supplier from transferring those goods to the customer. The entity does not control the suppliers’ inventory of goods used to fulfil the orders placed by customers using the website.

As part of reaching that conclusion, the entity considers the following indicators in paragraph B37 of IFRS 15. The entity concludes that these indicators provide further evidence that it does not control the specified goods before they are transferred to the customers:

Consequently, the entity concludes that it is an agent and its performance obligation is to arrange for the provision of goods by the supplier. When the entity satisfies its promise to arrange for the goods to be provided by the supplier to the customer (which, in this example, is when goods are purchased by the customer), the entity recognises revenue in the amount of the commission to which it is entitled.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer for equipment with unique specifications. The entity and the customer develop the specifications for the equipment, which the entity communicates to a supplier that the entity contracts with to manufacture the equipment. The entity also arranges to have the supplier deliver the equipment directly to the customer. Upon delivery of the equipment to the customer, the terms of the contract require the entity to pay the supplier the price agreed to by the entity and the supplier for manufacturing the equipment.

The entity and the customer negotiate the selling price and the entity invoices the customer for the agreed-upon price with 30-day payment terms. The entity's profit is based on the difference between the sales price negotiated with the customer and the price charged by the supplier.

The contract between the entity and the customer requires the customer to seek remedies for defects in the equipment from the supplier under the supplier’s warranty. However, the entity is responsible for any corrections to the equipment required resulting from errors in specifications.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer to provide office maintenance services. The entity and the customer define and agree on the scope of the services and negotiate the price. The entity is responsible for ensuring that the services are performed in accordance with the terms and conditions in the contract. The entity invoices the customer for the agreed‑upon price on a monthly basis with 10‑day payment terms.

The entity regularly engages third‑party service providers to provide office maintenance services to its customers. When the entity obtains a contract from a customer, the entity enters into a contract with one of those service providers, directing the service provider to perform office maintenance services for the customer. The payment terms in the contracts with the service providers are generally aligned with the payment terms in the entity’s contracts with customers. However, the entity is obliged to pay the service provider even if the customer fails to pay.

To determine whether the entity is a principal or an agent, the entity identifies the specified good or service to be provided to the customer and assesses whether it controls that good or service before the good or service is transferred to the customer.

The entity observes that the specified services to be provided to the customer are the office maintenance services for which the customer contracted, and that no other goods or services are promised to the customer. While the entity obtains a right to office maintenance services from the service provider after entering into the contract with the customer, that right is not transferred to the customer. That is, the entity retains the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all the remaining benefits from, that right. For example, the entity can decide whether to direct the service provider to provide the office maintenance services for that customer, or for another customer, or at its own facilities. The customer does not have a right to direct the service provider to perform services that the entity has not agreed to provide. Therefore, the right to office maintenance services obtained by the entity from the service provider is not the specified good or service in its contract with the customer.

The entity concludes that it controls the specified services before they are provided to the customer. The entity obtains control of a right to office maintenance services after entering into the contract with the customer but before those services are provided to the customer. The terms of the entity’s contract with the service provider give the entity the ability to direct the service provider to provide the specified services on the entity’s behalf (see paragraph B35A(b)). In addition, the entity concludes that the following indicators in paragraph B37 of IFRS 15 provide further evidence that the entity controls the office maintenance services before they are provided to the customer:

The entity observes that it does not commit itself to obtain the services from the service provider before obtaining the contract with the customer. Thus, the entity has mitigated inventory risk with respect to the office maintenance services. Nonetheless, the entity concludes that it controls the office maintenance services before they are provided to the customer on the basis of the evidence in paragraph IE238E.

Thus, the entity is a principal in the transaction and recognises revenue in the amount of consideration to which it is entitled from the customer in exchange for the office maintenance services.

An entity negotiates with major airlines to purchase tickets at reduced rates compared with the price of tickets sold directly by the airlines to the public. The entity agrees to buy a specific number of tickets and must pay for those tickets regardless of whether it is able to resell them. The reduced rate paid by the entity for each ticket purchased is negotiated and agreed in advance.

An entity sells vouchers that entitle customers to future meals at specified restaurants. The sales price of the voucher provides the customer with a significant discount when compared with the normal selling prices of the meals (for example, a customer pays CU100 for a voucher that entitles the customer to a meal at a restaurant that would otherwise cost CU200). The entity does not purchase or commit itself to purchase vouchers in advance of the sale of a voucher to a customer; instead, it purchases vouchers only as they are requested by the customers. The entity sells the vouchers through its website and the vouchers are non-refundable.

The entity and the restaurants jointly determine the prices at which the vouchers will be sold to customers. Under the terms of its contracts with the restaurants, the entity is entitled to 30 per cent of the voucher price when it sells the voucher.

The entity also assists the customers in resolving complaints about the meals and has a buyer satisfaction programme. However, the restaurant is responsible for fulfilling obligations associated with the voucher, including remedies to a customer for dissatisfaction with the service.

A customer obtains a voucher for the restaurant that it selects. The entity does not engage the restaurants to provide meals to customers on the entity’s behalf as described in the indicator in paragraph B37(a) of IFRS 15. Therefore, the entity observes that the specified good or service to be provided to the customer is the right to a meal (in the form of a voucher) at a specified restaurant or restaurants, which the customer purchases and then can use itself or transfer to another person. The entity also observes that no other goods or services (other than the vouchers) are promised to the customers.

The entity concludes that it does not control the voucher (right to a meal) at any time. In reaching this conclusion, the entity principally considers the following:

Thus, the entity concludes that it is an agent with respect to the vouchers. The entity recognises revenue in the net amount of consideration to which the entity will be entitled in exchange for arranging for the restaurants to provide vouchers to customers for the restaurants’ meals, which is the 30 per cent commission it is entitled to upon the sale of each voucher.

An entity sells services to assist its customers in more effectively targeting potential recruits for open job positions. The entity performs several services itself, such as interviewing candidates and performing background checks. As part of the contract with a customer, the customer agrees to obtain a licence to access a third party’s database of information on potential recruits. The entity arranges for this licence with the third party, but the customer contracts directly with the database provider for the licence. The entity collects payment on behalf of the third‑party database provider as part of the entity’s overall invoicing to the customer. The database provider sets the price charged to the customer for the licence, and is responsible for providing technical support and credits to which the customer may be entitled for service down time or other technical issues.

To determine whether the entity is a principal or an agent, the entity identifies the specified goods or services to be provided to the customer, and assesses whether it controls those goods or services before they are transferred to the customer.

For the purpose of this example, it is assumed that the entity concludes that its recruitment services and the database access licence are each distinct on the basis of its assessment of the requirements in paragraphs 27⁠–⁠30 of IFRS 15. Accordingly, there are two specified goods or services to be provided to the customer—access to the third party’s database and recruitment services.

The entity concludes that it does not control the access to the database before it is provided to the customer. The entity does not at any time have the ability to direct the use of the licence because the customer contracts for the licence directly with the database provider. The entity does not control access to the provider’s database—it cannot, for example, grant access to the database to a party other than the customer, or prevent the database provider from providing access to the customer.

As part of reaching that conclusion, the entity also considers the indicators in paragraph B37 of IFRS 15. The entity concludes that these indicators provide further evidence that it does not control access to the database before that access is provided to the customer:

Thus, the entity concludes that it is an agent in relation to the third party’s database service. In contrast, the entity concludes that it is the principal in relation to the recruitment services because the entity performs those services itself and no other party is involved in providing those services to the customer.

An entity enters into a contract for the sale of Product A for CU100. As part of the contract, the entity gives the customer a 40 per cent discount voucher for any future purchases up to CU100 in the next 30 days. The entity intends to offer a 10 per cent discount on all sales during the next 30 days as part of a seasonal promotion. The 10 per cent discount cannot be used in addition to the 40 per cent discount voucher.

Because all customers will receive a 10 per cent discount on purchases during the next 30 days, the only discount that provides the customer with a material right is the discount that is incremental to that 10 per cent (ie the additional 30 per cent discount). The entity accounts for the promise to provide the incremental discount as a performance obligation in the contract for the sale of Product A.

To estimate the stand-alone selling price of the discount voucher in accordance with paragraph B42 of IFRS 15, the entity estimates an 80 per cent likelihood that a customer will redeem the voucher and that a customer will, on average, purchase CU50 of additional products. Consequently, the entity’s estimated stand-alone selling price of the discount voucher is CU12 (CU50 average purchase price of additional products × 30 per cent incremental discount × 80 per cent likelihood of exercising the option). The stand‑alone selling prices of Product A and the discount voucher and the resulting allocation of the CU100 transaction price are as follows:

The entity allocates CU89 to Product A and recognises revenue for Product A when control transfers. The entity allocates CU11 to the discount voucher and recognises revenue for the voucher when the customer redeems it for goods or services or when it expires.

An entity in the telecommunications industry enters into a contract with a customer to provide a handset and monthly network service for two years. The network service includes up to 1,000 call minutes and 1,500 text messages each month for a fixed monthly fee. The contract specifies the price for any additional call minutes or texts that the customer may choose to purchase in any month. The prices for those services are equal to their stand‑alone selling prices.

The entity determines that the promises to provide the handset and network service are each separate performance obligations. This is because the customer can benefit from the handset and network service either on their own or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer in accordance with the criterion in paragraph 27(a) of IFRS 15. In addition, the handset and network service are separately identifiable in accordance with the criterion in paragraph 27(b) of IFRS 15 (on the basis of the factors in paragraph 29 of IFRS 15).

The entity determines that the option to purchase the additional call minutes and texts does not provide a material right that the customer would not receive without entering into the contract (see paragraph B41 of IFRS 15). This is because the prices of the additional call minutes and texts reflect the stand-alone selling prices for those services. Because the option for additional call minutes and texts does not grant the customer a material right, the entity concludes it is not a performance obligation in the contract. Consequently, the entity does not allocate any of the transaction price to the option for additional call minutes or texts. The entity will recognise revenue for the additional call minutes or texts if and when the entity provides those services.

An entity enters into 100 separate contracts with customers to provide one year of maintenance services for CU1,000 per contract. The terms of the contracts specify that at the end of the year, each customer has the option to renew the maintenance contract for a second year by paying an additional CU1,000. Customers who renew for a second year are also granted the option to renew for a third year for CU1,000. The entity charges significantly higher prices for maintenance services to customers that do not sign up for the maintenance services initially (ie when the products are new). That is, the entity charges CU3,000 in Year 2 and CU5,000 in Year 3 for annual maintenance services if a customer does not initially purchase the service or allows the service to lapse.

The entity concludes that the renewal option provides a material right to the customer that it would not receive without entering into the contract, because the price for maintenance services are significantly higher if the customer elects to purchase the services only in Year 2 or 3. Part of each customer’s payment of CU1,000 in the first year is, in effect, a non‑refundable prepayment of the services to be provided in a subsequent year. Consequently, the entity concludes that the promise to provide the option is a performance obligation.

The renewal option is for a continuation of maintenance services and those services are provided in accordance with the terms of the existing contract. Instead of determining the stand-alone selling prices for the renewal options directly, [Refer:paragraph B42] the entity allocates the transaction price by determining the consideration that it expects to receive in exchange for all the services that it expects to provide, in accordance with paragraph B43 of IFRS 15.

The entity expects 90 customers to renew at the end of Year 1 (90 per cent of contracts sold) and 81 customers to renew at the end of Year 2 (90 per cent of the 90 customers that renewed at the end of Year 1 will also renew at the end of Year 2, that is 81 per cent of contracts sold).

At contract inception, the entity determines the expected consideration for each contract is CU2,710 [CU1,000 + (90 per cent × CU1,000) + (81 per cent × CU1,000)]. The entity also determines that recognising revenue on the basis of costs incurred relative to the total expected costs depicts the transfer of services to the customer. Estimated costs for a three-year contract are as follows:

Accordingly, the pattern of revenue recognition expected at contract inception for each contract is as follows:

Consequently, at contract inception, the entity allocates to the option to renew at the end of Year 1 CU22,000 of the consideration received to date [cash of CU100,000 – revenue to be recognised in Year 1 of CU78,000 (CU780 × 100)].

Assuming there is no change in the entity’s expectations and the 90 customers renew as expected, at the end of the first year, the entity has collected cash of CU190,000 [(100 × CU1,000) + (90 × CU1,000)], has recognised revenue of CU78,000 (CU780 × 100) and has recognised a contract liability of CU112,000.

Consequently, upon renewal at the end of the first year, the entity allocates CU24,300 to the option to renew at the end of Year 2 [cumulative cash of CU190,000 less cumulative revenue recognised in Year 1 and to be recognised in Year 2 of CU165,700 (CU78,000 + CU877 × 100)].

If the actual number of contract renewals was different than what the entity expected, the entity would update the transaction price and the revenue recognised accordingly.

An entity has a customer loyalty programme that rewards a customer with one customer loyalty point for every CU10 of purchases. Each point is redeemable for a CU1 discount on any future purchases of the entity’s products. During a reporting period, customers purchase products for CU100,000 and earn 10,000 points that are redeemable for future purchases. The consideration is fixed and the stand-alone selling price of the purchased products is CU100,000. The entity expects 9,500 points to be redeemed. The entity estimates a stand-alone selling price of CU0.95 per point (totalling CU9,500) on the basis of the likelihood of redemption in accordance with paragraph B42 of IFRS 15.

The points provide a material right to customers that they would not receive without entering into a contract. Consequently, the entity concludes that the promise to provide points to the customer is a performance obligation. [Refer:paragraph 27] The entity allocates the transaction price (CU100,000) to the product and the points on a relative stand-alone selling price basis as follows:

At the end of the first reporting period, 4,500 points have been redeemed and the entity continues to expect 9,500 points to be redeemed in total. The entity recognises revenue for the loyalty points of CU4,110 [(4,500 points ÷ 9,500 points) × CU8,676] and recognises a contract liability of CU4,566 (CU8,676 ⁠–⁠ CU4,110) for the unredeemed points at the end of the first reporting period.

At the end of the second reporting period, 8,500 points have been redeemed cumulatively. The entity updates its estimate of the points that will be redeemed and now expects that 9,700 points will be redeemed. The entity recognises revenue for the loyalty points of CU3,493 {[(8,500 total points redeemed ÷ 9,700 total points expected to be redeemed) × CU8,676 initial allocation] – CU4,110 recognised in the first reporting period}. The contract liability balance is CU1,073 (CU8,676 initial allocation – CU7,603 of cumulative revenue recognised).

An entity enters into a contract with a customer for one year of transaction processing services. The entity’s contracts have standard terms that are the same for all customers. The contract requires the customer to pay an upfront fee to set up the customer on the entity’s systems and processes. The fee is a nominal amount and is non-refundable. The customer can renew the contract each year without paying an additional fee.

The entity’s setup activities do not transfer a good or service to the customer and, therefore, do not give rise to a performance obligation.

The entity concludes that the renewal option does not provide a material right to the customer that it would not receive without entering into that contract (see paragraph B40 of IFRS 15). The upfront fee is, in effect, an advance payment for the future transaction processing services. Consequently, the entity determines the transaction price, which includes the non-refundable upfront fee, and recognises revenue for the transaction processing services as those services are provided in accordance with paragraph B49 of IFRS 15.

Using the same facts as in Case A in Example 11 (see paragraphs IE49⁠–⁠IE53), the entity identifies four performance obligations in a contract:

An entity, a pharmaceutical company, licenses to a customer its patent rights to an approved drug compound for 10 years and also promises to manufacture the drug for the customer. The drug is a mature product; therefore the entity will not undertake any activities to support the drug, which is consistent with its customary business practices.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer and promises to grant a franchise licence that provides the customer with the right to use the entity’s trade name and sell the entity’s products for 10 years. In addition to the licence, the entity also promises to provide the equipment necessary to operate a franchise store. In exchange for granting the licence, the entity receives a sales-based royalty of five per cent of the customer’s monthly sales. The fixed consideration for the equipment is CU150,000 payable when the equipment is delivered.

An entity, a creator of comic strips, licenses the use of the images and names of its comic strip characters in three of its comic strips to a customer for a four-year term. There are main characters involved in each of the comic strips. However, newly created characters appear regularly and the images of the characters evolve over time. The customer, an operator of cruise ships, can use the entity’s characters in various ways, such as in shows or parades, within reasonable guidelines. The contract requires the customer to use the latest images of the characters.

In exchange for granting the licence, the entity receives a fixed payment of CU1 million in each year of the four-year term.

Consequently, the entity concludes that the criteria in paragraph B58 of IFRS 15 are met and that the nature of the entity’s promise to transfer the licence is to provide the customer with access to the entity’s intellectual property as it exists throughout the licence period. Consequently, the entity accounts for the promised licence as a performance obligation satisfied over time (ie the criterion in paragraph 35(a) of IFRS 15 is met).

The entity applies paragraphs 39⁠–⁠45 of IFRS 15 to identify the method that best depicts its performance in the licence. Because the contract provides the customer with unlimited use of the licensed characters for a fixed term, the entity determines that a time-based method would be the most appropriate measure of progress towards complete satisfaction of the performance obligation.

An entity, a music record label, licenses to a customer a 1975 recording of a classical symphony by a noted orchestra. The customer, a consumer products company, has the right to use the recorded symphony in all commercials, including television, radio and online advertisements for two years in Country A. In exchange for providing the licence, the entity receives fixed consideration of CU10,000 per month. The contract does not include any other goods or services to be provided by the entity. The contract is non-cancellable.

Because of the length of time between the entity’s performance (at the beginning of the period) and the customer’s monthly payments over two years (which are non-cancellable), the entity considers the requirements in paragraphs 60⁠–⁠65 of IFRS 15 to determine whether a significant financing component exists.

An entity, a well-known sports team, licenses the use of its name and logo to a customer. The customer, an apparel designer, has the right to use the sports team’s name and logo on items including t-shirts, caps, mugs and towels for one year. In exchange for providing the licence, the entity will receive fixed consideration of CU2 million and a royalty of five per cent of the sales price of any items using the team name or logo. The customer expects that the entity will continue to play games and provide a competitive team.

The entity concludes that the criteria in paragraph B58 of IFRS 15 are met and the nature of the entity’s promise to grant the licence is to provide the customer with access to the entity’s intellectual property as it exists throughout the licence period. Consequently, the entity accounts for the promised licence as a performance obligation satisfied over time (ie the criterion in paragraph 35(a) of IFRS 15 is met).

An entity enters into a contract with a customer for the sale of a tangible asset on 1 January 20X7 for CU1 million.

An entity enters into a contract with a customer on 1 January 20X8 for the sale of a machine and spare parts. The manufacturing lead time for the machine and spare parts is two years.

Upon completion of manufacturing, the entity demonstrates that the machine and spare parts meet the agreed-upon specifications in the contract. The promises to transfer the machine and spare parts are distinct [Refer:paragraph 27] and result in two performance obligations that each will be satisfied at a point in time. On 31 December 20X9, the customer pays for the machine and spare parts, but only takes physical possession of the machine. Although the customer inspects and accepts the spare parts, the customer requests that the spare parts be stored at the entity’s warehouse because of its close proximity to the customer’s factory. The customer has legal title to the spare parts and the parts can be identified as belonging to the customer. Furthermore, the entity stores the spare parts in a separate section of its warehouse and the parts are ready for immediate shipment at the customer’s request. The entity expects to hold the spare parts for two to four years and the entity does not have the ability to use the spare parts or direct them to another customer.

The entity identifies the promise to provide custodial services as a performance obligation because it is a service provided to the customer and it is distinct from the machine and spare parts. Consequently, the entity accounts for three performance obligations in the contract (the promises to provide the machine, the spare parts and the custodial services). The transaction price is allocated to the three performance obligations and revenue is recognised when (or as) control transfers to the customer.

Control of the machine transfers to the customer on 31 December 20X9 when the customer takes physical possession. The entity assesses the indicators in paragraph 38 of IFRS 15 to determine the point in time at which control of the spare parts transfers to the customer, noting that the entity has received payment, the customer has legal title to the spare parts and the customer has inspected and accepted the spare parts. In addition, the entity concludes that all of the criteria in paragraph B81 of IFRS 15 are met, which is necessary for the entity to recognise revenue in a bill-and-hold arrangement. The entity recognises revenue for the spare parts on 31 December 20X9 when control transfers to the customer.

The performance obligation to provide custodial services is satisfied over time as the services are provided. The entity considers whether the payment terms include a significant financing component in accordance with paragraphs 60⁠–⁠65 of IFRS 15.