Software Revenue recognition

Transcription

1 Financial reporting developments A comprehensive guide Software Revenue recognition Accounting Standards Codification September 2012

2 To our clients and other friends Determining how and when to recognize revenue for software licensing arrangements continues to be challenging even though it has been more than a decade since the Accounting Standards Executive Committee (AcSEC) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) issued Statement of Position 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition. 1 This guidance is codified in the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) at , Software Revenue Recognition. This publication has been updated to include the appropriate references from the ASC. We have prepared this publication to help you understand and apply the software revenue recognition accounting literature. This publication presents each paragraph (or series of paragraphs) excerpted from the ASC verbatim. These excerpts are followed by a discussion of our current views and observations on the application of the guidance. These discussions utilize questions and responses, including illustrative examples, to highlight key concepts. Our views and observations are based on the relevant guidance, what we have seen in practice, consultations with the standards setters, interactions with other major accounting firms and our participation on the Software Revenue Recognition Task Force, a once-standing task force of AcSEC. 2 In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update No , Certain Revenue Arrangements that Include Software Elements (ASU ), that will significantly affect how entities account for revenue arrangements containing both hardware and software elements. ASU revised the guidance regarding the types of arrangements that fall under the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance, providing a scope exception for many transactions that were previously within the scope of ASC This publication has been updated to reflect the revised scope exceptions to the software revenue recognition guidance provided by ASU , and it provides guidance on certain transition issues entities are likely to encounter. We expect software revenue recognition to continue to present challenges for financial statement preparers. Ways of doing business continue to evolve as do the views of the standard setters and regulators. While these changes are inevitable, one thing is certain it is imperative that any company required to apply the software revenue recognition standards be thoroughly knowledgeable of the guidance and have robust and effective processes and controls to facilitate and maintain compliance therewith. We hope this publication will help you understand and successfully apply the provisions of ASC Ernst & Young professionals are prepared to assist you in your understanding and are ready to discuss your particular concerns and questions. September As amended by Statement of Position 98-9, Modification of SOP 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, With Respect to Certain Transactions 2 The Task Force commenced in 1998 and is now largely inactive. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 1

3 Contents 1 Introduction and scope Chapter summary Introduction and scope Scope exceptions Relationship to other pronouncements Chapter summary Basic principles Chapter summary Arrangements to customize licensed software Basic revenue recognition criteria Multiple-element arrangements Allocating fees based on VSOE of fair value Allocating discounts Revenue recognition for bundled units of accounting Undelivered elements essential to functionality of delivered elements Fees subject to forfeiture, refund or concession Basic principles recognition criteria Chapter summary Persuasive evidence of an arrangement Delivery has occurred Customer acceptance Multiple copies of software products versus multiple licenses Delivery other than to the customer Delivery agents Authorization codes The vendor s fee is fixed or determinable and collectibility is probable Factors that affect the determination of whether a fee is fixed or determinable and collectible Reseller arrangements Customer cancellation privileges Fiscal funding clauses Multiple-element arrangements Chapter summary Identifying elements in multiple-element arrangements Upgrades or enhancements Additional software products Price-per-copy arrangements Unspecified additional software products Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition i

4 1 Introduction and scope 6 Rights to exchange or return software Chapter summary Platform-transfer rights Exchange rights provided to resellers Postcontract customer support Chapter summary Services that qualify as PCS VSOE of fair value of PCS Upfront recognition of PCS Postdelivery telephone support at no additional charge Reseller PCS Services Chapter summary Determining if services can be accounted for as a separate element in the arrangement Allocating and recognizing revenue for a separate service element Core software versus off-the-shelf software Funded software-development arrangements Contract accounting Chapter summary Contract accounting Applying contract accounting to software arrangements Combining and segmenting contracts Applying the percentage-of-completion method to software arrangements Input measures Output measures Disclosures Chapter summary Management s Discussion and Analysis A Transitional considerations in adopting the revised guidance in ASU A-1 B Abbreviations used in this publication... B-1 C Index of ASC references in this publication... C-1 D Scope and relationship to other pronouncements... D-1 Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition ii

5 1 Introduction and scope Notice to readers: This publication includes excerpts from and references to the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (the Codification or ASC). The Codification uses a hierarchy that includes Topics, Subtopics, Sections and Paragraphs. Each Topic includes an Overall Subtopic that generally includes pervasive guidance for the topic and additional Subtopics, as needed, with incremental or unique guidance. Each Subtopic includes Sections that in turn include numbered Paragraphs. Thus, a Codification reference includes the Topic (XXX), Subtopic (YY), Section (ZZ) and Paragraph (PP). Throughout this publication references to guidance in the codification are shown using these reference numbers. References are also made to certain pre-codification standards (and specific sections or paragraphs of pre-codification standards) in situations in which the content being discussed is excluded from the Codification. This publication has been carefully prepared but it necessarily contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only; it is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. The information presented in this publication should not be construed as legal, tax, accounting, or any other professional advice or service. Ernst & Young LLP can accept no responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication. You should consult with Ernst & Young LLP or other professional advisors familiar with your particular factual situation for advice concerning specific audit, tax or other matters before making any decisions. Portions of FASB publications reprinted with permission. Copyright Financial Accounting Standards Board, 401 Merritt 7, P.O. Box 5116, Norwalk, CT , U.S.A. Portions of AICPA Statements of Position, Technical Practice Aids, and other AICPA publications reprinted with permission. Copyright American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY , USA. Copies of complete documents are available from the FASB and the AICPA. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition iii

6 1 Introduction and scope 1.1 Chapter summary In October 1997, the AcSEC of the AICPA issued Statement of Position 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition (SOP 97-2). This guidance is codified in ASC , Software Revenue Recognition. The guidance in ASC is applicable to transactions involving the licensing, selling, leasing or otherwise marketing of computer software and related elements. This guidance requires a determination of its applicability to revenue arrangements at an activity level versus an entity level (i.e., whether or not an entity is a software entity in the traditional vernacular is not determinative in assessing whether a transaction is or is not within the scope of ASC ). In certain circumstances, the assessment as to whether an arrangement is within the scope of ASC can be straightforward. However, this assessment can also be complex and require considerable professional judgment, especially when the software is bundled with products, services or both. Additionally, if an entity offers discounts or other concessions relating to software products or other deliverables that are within the scope of ASC that are determined to be more-thaninsignificant, an additional element is being offered in the arrangement, and that element also must be accounted for in accordance with ASC However, insignificant discounts and discounts that are not incremental to discounts typically given in comparable transactions are not unique to software transactions and are not included in the scope of ASC These types of discount offers are similar to coupons offered in a retail environment for mass marketing efforts. This guidance also applies to certain hosting arrangements and to the sale of services containing or utilizing software when the software content is more-than-incidental to the service and the service is essential to the functionality of the software. However, the guidance also contains a number of scope exceptions for certain elements in an arrangement. Specifically, the following types of transactions have been excluded from the scope of this guidance: Arrangements in which the software is incidental to the products or services as a whole. Leases of software that include a tangible product, if the software is incidental to the tangible product as a whole or the software and nonsoftware components of the tangible product function together to deliver the tangible product s essential functionality. Nonsoftware components of tangible products. Software components of tangible products when the software components and nonsoftware components of the tangible product function together to deliver the tangible product s essential functionality. We also refer to these types of software components as essential software throughout this publication. Undelivered components that relate to the software that is essential to the above-described tangible product s functionality. These concepts are discussed further below. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 1

7 1 Introduction and scope 1.2 Introduction and scope Excerpt from Accounting Standards Codification Software Revenue Recognition Overview and Background This Subtopic provides guidance on when revenue should be recognized and in what amounts for licensing, selling, leasing, or otherwise marketing computer software [Not used] Software arrangements range from those that provide a license for a single software product to those that, in addition to the delivery of software or a software system, require significant production, modification, or customization of software Structurally, the form of a hosting arrangement may be split into two elements: a. The right to use software b. The hosting service. The arrangement may or may not include a license right to the software and the customer may or may not have an option to take delivery of the software. The guidance beginning in paragraph addresses the scope application of this Subtopic to a hosting arrangement. Scope and Scope Exceptions This Subtopic follows the same Scope and Scope Exceptions as outlined in the Overall Topic, see Section , with specific qualifications and exceptions noted below The guidance in this Subtopic applies to all entities The guidance in this Subtopic applies to the following transactions and activities: a. Licensing, selling, leasing, or otherwise marketing computer software. b. [Subparagraph superseded by Accounting Standards Update No ] c. The software and software-related elements of arrangements that include software that is morethan-incidental to the products or services in the arrangement as a whole. Indicators that software is more-than-incidental to the products or services in an arrangement as a whole include (but are not limited to): 1. The software is a significant focus of the marketing effort or is sold separately. 2. The vendor is providing postcontract customer support. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 2

8 1 Introduction and scope 3. The vendor incurs significant costs that are within the scope of Subtopic In such arrangements, the guidance in this Subtopic applies to the software and softwarerelated elements in the arrangement unless a scope exception in paragraph is present. Software-related elements include software products and services such as those listed in paragraph A service is within the scope of this Subtopic if software in the arrangement is essential to the functionality of that service. d. More-than-insignificant discounts on future purchases that are offered by a vendor in a software arrangement. More-than-insignificant discounts have all of the following characteristics: 1. Incremental to the range of discounts reflected in the pricing of the other elements of the arrangement 2. Incremental to the range of discounts typically given in comparable transactions 3. Significant. If the discount or other concessions in an arrangement are more than insignificant, a presumption is created that an additional element or elements (as defined in paragraph ) are being offered in the arrangement. Judgment is required when assessing whether an incremental discount is significant. e. Arrangements to deliver software or a software system, either alone or together with other products or services that require significant production, modification, or customization of software (see Subtopic ). Paragraphs through provide guidance on applying contract accounting to certain arrangements involving software. If a software arrangement includes services that meet the criteria discussed in paragraph , those services should be accounted for separately. The guidance beginning in paragraph addresses the scope application of this Subtopic to a hosting arrangement. Determining if an arrangement is within the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance included in ASC Question 1-1 What factors should be considered in assessing whether an arrangement is within the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance in ASC ? ASC requires a determination of its applicability to be made at an activity level versus an entity level (i.e., whether an entity is a software entity, as described by the entity itself or by others, is not determinative as to whether the provisions of this guidance should be applied). Accordingly, many entities that consider themselves hardware or equipment vendors may still have software components of their product offerings that need to be accounted for pursuant to this guidance. Any transactions including the licensing, selling, leasing, or otherwise marketing of computer software must be assessed to determine whether those transactions, in whole or in part, fall under the guidance in ASC In certain situations, this assessment will be straightforward; in others, it will be more complex. For example: Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 3

9 1 Introduction and scope If the arrangement contains only software, the assessment is straightforward, as such arrangements are pure software arrangements and, therefore, are always in the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance. If arrangements contain both software and tangible products, the assessment may be more complex. For such transactions, an entity may have to consider a number of factors, including the following: The entity will have to determine whether the software and software-related elements are more than-incidental to the products or services as a whole. (See FAQ 1-2 for a further discussion of this concept.) If the software and software-related elements are not more-thanincidental to the products or services as a whole, then the transaction is not subject to the provisions of ASC If the software and software-related elements are more-than-incidental to the products or services in the arrangement as a whole, those software and software-related elements are within the scope of the ASC , unless any of the scope exceptions in ASC apply. (See FAQ 1-5 for a further discussion of the scope exceptions.) If the software and software-related elements are within the scope of ASC (i.e., they are more-than-incidental, and none of the scope exceptions in ASC apply), any services included in the arrangement will have to be assessed to determine if they also fall within the scope of ASC If the software and software-related elements are essential to the functionality of the services, the services are within the scope of ASC Determination of more-than-incidental Question 1-2 What factors should be considered in determining whether the software and software-related elements in an arrangement including products or services are more-than-incidental to the arrangement as a whole? ASC indicates that its provisions are applicable to the sale of software and software-related elements in arrangements when the software is more-than-incidental to the products or services in the arrangement as a whole. However, determining whether software content is more-than-incidental to the products or services in which the software is contained can be difficult and will require considerable judgment. In other situations, entities may not need to give much consideration as to whether the software is more-than-incidental because the product and related software will qualify for the scope exceptions provided in ASC , regardless of the result of the more-than-incidental determination. However, in situations in which the scope exceptions do not apply, an entity will have to assess whether or not the software included within an arrangement is more-than-incidental to the products or services as a whole. ASC provides the following indicators to consider when making the determination as to whether the software is more-than-incidental: Is the software a significant focus of the marketing effort or is the software sold separately? Evaluation of this factor seeks to determine if the focus of the company s marketing effort for the product or service is on the software component such that the customer s buying decision is significantly influenced by the software component of the product or service (e.g., the software component is a factor that differentiates the product or service from competitor s products). The greater the emphasis on the features and functionality of the software in the marketing of the product or service by the vendor, the more likely it is that the software is important to the customer s buying decision. In such cases, the software may be more-than-incidental. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 4

10 1 Introduction and scope For purposes of evaluating this factor, consideration should be given to the content of marketing collateral (e.g., advertisements, product brochures, vendor websites, tear sheets, proposals, sales personnel training and presentations, etc). Additionally, consideration should also be given to whether the product or service is described and differentiated based on the software s features and capabilities or by features and capabilities of the product or service that are primarily driven by the functionality of the software. If the software s features are marketed, the relative significance of that focus to the overall marketing effort for the product or service must be evaluated. We understand that when evaluating the focus of the marketing effort for a product or service, the SEC staff will read the company s discussion of its business, including the products and services that it offers, contained in any SEC filings. Additionally, our experience with the SEC staff indicates that they often will read the content of a company s website and other publicly available information to evaluate the focus of its marketing efforts. When software is sold without the associated product or service, this generally is an indicator that the software is more-than-incidental to the products and services that are being marketed. Is the vendor providing postcontract customer support (PCS)? ASC defines PCS, in part, as the right to receive services (other than those accounted for separately), or unspecified product upgrades/enhancements on a when-and-if-available basis, or both. PCS typically includes one or more of the following: Telephone support Bug fixes or debugging Unspecified upgrades/enhancements on a when-and-if-available basis PCS may be provided by a software vendor even though not evidenced by a written contract. This is referred to as implied PCS. We believe that if a vendor provides PCS for software marketed in conjunction with, or as a part of, a product or service offered for sale (either as a condition of a written contract or through implied PCS), this is an indicator that the software is more-than-incidental. However, the services comprising PCS should be considered before concluding that the software is more-than-incidental. For example, assume a vendor provides periodic updates on a when-and-ifavailable basis, but 1) the updates are limited to bug fixes and no new functionality or features are provided to the customer and 2) the bug fixes are not provided on a regular basis. Although the definition of PCS provided by ASC encompasses bug fixes, when bug fixes are the only item provided after delivery of the licensed software, and that is the vendor s continuing intent, the vendor is in essence providing services pursuant to a warranty. In such circumstances, the provision of bug fixes should be accounted for as a warranty obligation pursuant to ASC 450, Contingencies. While the presence of PCS may be an indicator that the software is more-than-incidental, the absence of PCS should not be presumed to indicate that the software is incidental. As illustrated by the excerpt of the illustrative guidance below, situations may exist in which the customer does not need PCS and, despite its absence, the provisions of ASC are applicable. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 5

11 1 Introduction and scope Excerpt from Accounting Standards Codification Software Revenue Recognition Implementation Guidance and Illustrations Example 2: Scope A Developer of Interactive Training Courses This example illustrates the guidance in paragraphs through 15-4 regarding the determination of whether the software is incidental to the products or services as a whole An entity develops interactive training courses for sale or licensing to customers. These courses are delivered on a compact disc, which is loaded onto a customer s computer. The courses are developed such that, based on the responses received to a particular question, different questions are generated and content of the course material that is displayed is determined in a manner that directs the user s learning experience in a more focused way. The course developer s costs for the development of the software content are within the scope of Subtopic and are significant. The interactive nature of the courses is mentioned prominently in the marketing efforts The Subtopic is applicable because the software is not incidental to the product Although some might say that the product is educational services, the marketing of the product focuses on the software-reliant interactive features. In addition, the course developer incurs significant costs that are within the scope of Subtopic The nature of the relationship between the vendor and the customer is not one in which the customer would have a need for postcontract services. Consequently, the absence of postcontract support is not presumptive that software is incidental to the product. Accordingly, a conclusion is reached that the software is not incidental to the product as a whole. Therefore, the provisions of this Subtopic apply. Does the vendor incur significant costs that are within the scope of ASC , Software Costs of Software to be Sold, Leased, or Marketed? A cursory reading of this indicator might lead one to consider whether significant costs have been capitalized pursuant to the provisions of ASC However, we believe that the indicator seeks to determine whether significant costs have been incurred, regardless of whether such costs have been capitalized. The scope of ASC includes all the costs incurred in the development of the software component (which generally are expensed as research and development) and those that are production costs (which generally are capitalized). When evaluating the appropriate aggregate pool of costs of developing the product or service as a whole (i.e., ASC costs and the hardware or equipment development costs), we believe a pure quantification of the ASC or software costs is not necessarily determinative of the significance of the total development costs. For example, if internally generated development costs are incurred relating to software but a larger amount is incurred to acquire or develop a box that houses the software used to provide a service, the software development costs incurred may still indicate that the software is more-than-incidental. Additionally, when development costs relate to both hardware and software, it is important to analyze the components of the development costs. That is, consideration should be given to the relationship of the software development costs to the hardware development costs. When the software development costs are significant relative to the Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 6

12 1 Introduction and scope total development costs of the product, this is an indicator that the software is more-than-incidental. Of course, in both of these situations, if the transaction meets the scope exception guidance within ASC (e.g., the entity determines that the hardware and software are working together to provide the essential functionality of the tangible product), the transaction would be excluded from the scope of ASC , even if the software is more-than-incidental (see FAQ 1-5). We believe that the scope exception pertaining to the hardware and software functioning together will apply in a large number of transactions for tangible products including both hardware and more-than-incidental software. However, if the scope exceptions do not apply, the vendor will have to account for any software components of the development costs in accordance with ASC If a vendor concludes the software component of its products or services is incidental to those products or services as a whole, that conclusion should be periodically reevaluated. This is particularly true for companies in technology-based industries because of the rapidly changing environment in which many of these companies operate and the evolution of software embedded in their products or used to provide their services. When assessing whether changes in a company s products or services indicate that the software has become more-than-incidental to the arrangement, the SEC staff outlined in a speech at the December 2004 AICPA Conference on SEC Current Developments the following factors that should be considered. When evaluating whether the software is a significant focus of the marketing effort of the product or service, companies should focus on whether changes to the features and functionality of the product or service being promoted by advertisements directly result from the software. In some situations, hardware manufacturers or service providers find the underlying software works so well that it develops a market among their competitors. They then begin to license that software separately for sale so their competitors can use the software in their product and service offerings. That would represent a change in circumstances that may suggest that the embedded software is more-than-incidental. Changes in circumstances also may affect a company s accounting for software costs. Companies should carefully consider the interaction between ASC and ASC , Intangibles Goodwill and Other Internal Use Software, as it relates to accounting for the costs of software-related to the product or service offerings. A determination that such costs are most appropriately accounted for pursuant to ASC may indicate that the software is morethan-incidental to the products or services that it is included in or sold with. The SEC staff also commented that companies that have software underlying products and services that they believe are nonsoftware centric should consider the following indicators of whether the software is more-than-incidental: Do the rights to use the software remain solely with the vendor, or are the rights transferred to the customer as part of the product or service offering? If the rights to use the software survive cessation of the service or sale of the product, this is an indicator that the software is more-than-incidental. Does the licensed software require the customer to provide dedicated information technology (IT) support? If the customer must maintain and troubleshoot the underlying software, it may be morethan-incidental. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 7

13 1 Introduction and scope This speech also emphasized the following matters: The factors identified in the software revenue recognition guidance as those to be considered when determining whether software is more-than-incidental are not determinative, presumptive or all inclusive. Further, the staff acknowledged that these factors can be difficult to apply to products or services not traditionally viewed as software-related. We believe this point emphasizes that the determination of whether software is more-than-incidental is a matter that requires professional judgment. A change in circumstances resulting in a company concluding that software is not incidental also would require the costs of developing the software be accounted for pursuant to ASC rather than as internal use software. Because a company s determination in this area involves significant judgment and would likely have a material effect on a company s revenue recognition policy, a detailed discussion of these factors and the related conclusions within the Critical Accounting Policies section of MD&A may be appropriate. Note that the scope exception in ASC regarding hardware and software that function together to deliver a tangible product s essential functionality arose after this SEC staff speech. Because the evaluation of that scope exception also involves judgment and could materially affect the financial statements, we believe the SEC staff would expect similar disclosures for that judgment. It is difficult to consider one indicator more persuasive than another, so a careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances is required to determine whether the provisions of the software revenue recognition guidance are applicable to all of a company s activities, certain software product lines or individual transactions. Applicability of ASC when licensed software is hosted by the vendor Question 1-3 Are the provisions of the software revenue recognition guidance applicable to arrangements in which a vendor agrees to host licensed software, or should such arrangements be accounted for as service contracts? Some vendors enter into transactions to provide customers with software functionality without the customer having to install the licensed software on their own hardware. Instead, the vendor s software resides on its own servers, or those of third parties engaged by the vendor, and the customer accesses the software on an as-needed basis via a dedicated link or the Internet. Reasons for transactions of this nature might include the vendor s desired business model or the desire of a customer to avoid a dedicated in-house information systems infrastructure to support the licensed software. Such transactions typically are referred to as hosting, Application Service Provider (ASP) or Software as a Service (SaaS) arrangements. Regardless of the term used to describe such an arrangement, the form may be split into two elements: 1) the right to use the licensed software and 2) the hosting service. The arrangements may or may not include an explicit license of the software, and the customer may or may not have an option to take delivery of the software. Although the vendor s software is undoubtedly key to its ability to meet its obligations to its customer in such arrangements, the arrangement itself may or may not be subject to the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance. To determine whether the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance is applicable, the substance of the arrangement must be evaluated to determine whether a service based on the software is being delivered to the customer. ASC includes factors that must be considered in making such determination, as follows: Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 8

14 1 Introduction and scope Excerpt from Accounting Standards Codification Software Revenue Recognition Implementation Guidance and Illustrations Hosting Arrangement This implementation guidance addresses the scope application of this Subtopic to a hosting arrangement [Paragraph not used] A software element subject to this Subtopic is only present in a hosting arrangement if both of the following criteria are met: a. The customer has the contractual right to take possession of the software at any time during the hosting period without significant penalty. b. It is feasible for the customer to either run the software on its own hardware or contract with another party unrelated to the vendor to host the software. Accordingly, a hosting arrangement in which the customer has an option as specified in this paragraph is within the scope of this Subtopic For purposes of item (b) in the preceding paragraph, the term significant penalty contains two distinct concepts: a. The ability to take delivery of the software without incurring significant cost b. The ability to use the software separately without a significant diminution in utility or value Therefore, arrangements that do not give the customer such an option are service contracts and are outside the scope of this Subtopic. Hosting arrangements that are service arrangements may include multiple elements that affect how revenue should be attributed For those hosting arrangements in which the customer has the option, as described in paragraph to take possession of the software, delivery of the software occurs when the customer has the ability to take immediate possession of the software. If the software element is within the scope of this Subtopic, all of this Subtopic s requirements for recognizing revenue, including vendorspecific objective evidence of fair value and the requirement that the fee allocated to the software element not be subject to forfeiture, refund, or other concession, must be met to recognize revenue upon delivery for the portion of the fee allocated to the software element. The portion of the fee allocated to the hosting element should be recognized as the service is provided. Hosting arrangements that are within the scope of this Subtopic may also include other elements, such as specified or unspecified upgrade rights, in addition to the software product and the hosting service If the vendor never sells, leases, or licenses the software in an arrangement within the scope of this Subtopic, then the software is utilized in providing services and the development costs of the software should be accounted for in accordance with Subtopic Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 9

15 1 Introduction and scope The fact that an arrangement conveys to the customer a license to software hosted by the vendor is not in and of itself a sufficient basis to conclude that the arrangement is subject to the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance. ASC specifies that an arrangement should only be deemed to include a software element that should be accounted for pursuant to the software revenue recognition guidance if the customer has the contractual right to take possession of the software at any time during the hosting period without significant penalty, and it is feasible for the customer to either run the software on its own hardware or contract with another party unrelated to the vendor to host the software. These factors are discussed in more detail below. A vendor does not have to deliver licensed software included in an arrangement for a software element to exist in the arrangement. Conversely, a software element is not present in a transaction merely because the vendor delivers a copy of the licensed software to the customer. The key in determining whether a software element exists is whether the customer has a substantive right to take possession of the licensed software and use it for its intended purpose without further utilization of the hosting services offered by the vendor. In other words, for a software element to be deemed to exist in a hosting arrangement, the customer must be able to use the software in-house or engage a third party unrelated to the vendor to host the software on its behalf, and it must be able to do so without incurring a significant penalty. ASC defines a significant penalty using two distinct criteria: 1) the ability to take delivery of the software without incurring significant cost and 2) the ability to use the software separately without a significant diminution in utility or value. In order to conclude that a significant penalty does not exist, the vendor must be able to demonstrate that the customer can meet both of the conditions above. However, the guidance does not provide specific guidelines on how to apply these two criteria in practice. We believe that the following factors should be considered in evaluating whether a customer has the ability to take delivery of software included in an arrangement without incurring significant cost: Whether financial penalties or operational barriers act as a significant disincentive to the customer taking possession of the software. An example of such a barrier is a contractual requirement that significant fees or penalties must be paid to the vendor in connection with taking possession of the software. Another form of penalty may be a requirement to pay or forfeit a significant amount of unused hosting fees on cancellation of the hosting contract. Accordingly, a hosting arrangement should be evaluated carefully to determine if the amount of hosting fees that the customer must either 1) pay on cancellation or 2) forfeit if prepaid, represents a significant cost. Although a bright line does not exist to determine significance, if a penalty represents more than 10% of the overall arrangement fees (generally comprised of the software license fees, the initial bundled PCS period and non-cancelable hosting fees), we believe a rebuttable presumption exists that the penalty is significant. Additionally, a penalty of less than 10% may be significant based on the applicable facts and circumstances. The evaluation should be based on whether the amount of the penalty creates a sufficiently large disincentive such that it is not likely that the customer would incur the penalty to take possession of the software. In evaluating whether any fees or penalties are significant, we believe that the amount of the fees or penalties should be evaluated both in the context of the overall arrangement economics as well as the financial condition of the customer. Whether there is an explicit, reasonable mechanism in the contractual arrangement by which the customer can exercise a right to take possession of the software. Whether other economic barriers or costs exist that act as a significant disincentive to the customer taking possession of the software. For example, specialized hardware may be required to run the software, but the cost of obtaining that hardware is so high that a significant disincentive exists. Furthermore, if specialized technicians are needed to run the software, the cost to hire the technicians also may be a significant disincentive. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 10

16 1 Introduction and scope Whether there is an absence of an adequate number of qualified replacement service providers. A lack of service providers that could host the licensed software due to 1) unique features, functionality or operating system requirements of the software, 2) the need to hire specialized technicians to run the software at a significant cost or 3) other factors may be a significant disincentive. We believe the following factors should be considered in evaluating whether a customer has the ability to use software separately without a significant diminution in utility or value: Whether the customer can utilize all of the functionality of the software if the software is not hosted by the vendor. For example, if the software would not be able to process substantially the same number of transactions in approximately the same period if not hosted by the vendor, this may indicate that the customer cannot use the software separately from the vendor s hosting services without a significant diminution in utility or value. Whether software upgrades are only available to customers for whom the vendor hosts the software. If the functionality provided by upgrades to the software is important to customers, and such upgrades would not be made available if the software is not hosted by the vendor, the utility of the software to a customer is likely significantly diminished if the vendor s hosting services are discontinued. If a software element is not deemed to be included in a hosting arrangement pursuant to the provisions of ASC , the entire arrangement should generally be accounted for as a service contract in accordance with the provisions of the multiple-element arrangements guidance in ASC and the general revenue recognition guidance in SAB Topic 13. We generally expect that when a hosting arrangement does not have a software element pursuant to ASC and is therefore in the scope of SAB Topic 13, the software would generally not have standalone value. Accordingly, if an arrangement is composed of only the right to use the software and the hosting service, the two elements should be accounted for as one unit of accounting pursuant to ASC In this case, as the hosting service is the last element to be delivered, the entire arrangement fee should be recognized as revenue as the hosting service is performed. If all elements of the arrangement, including hosting or any other services, are within the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance, the separation criteria in that guidance are applicable and must be evaluated. If VSOE of fair value exists for each element, the arrangement consideration should be allocated to the various elements using the relative-fair-value method such that each element of the arrangement is allocated a proportionate amount of consideration and any discount from the arrangement. If VSOE of fair value exists only for the undelivered elements of the arrangement, an amount of arrangement consideration equal to VSOE of fair value should be allocated to the undelivered elements and the remaining amount of arrangement consideration, if any, should be allocated to the delivered elements. If VSOE of fair value does not exist for the undelivered elements, the revenue should be recognized at the earlier of the following (assuming all of the basic criteria for revenue recognition of ASC have been met): VSOE of fair value is developed for the undelivered elements All elements of the arrangement have been delivered If the last undelivered element of the arrangement is a service, such as a hosting service, that does not involve significant production, modification or customization of the licensed software, the entire fee should be recognized over the period that the services will be performed If the elements of the arrangement are not within the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance, the arrangement should be accounted for as a service contract in accordance with the provisions of ASC and SAB Topic 13 as discussed above. If a vendor is unable to separately Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 11

17 1 Introduction and scope account for a delivered software license, for example, due to a lack of standalone value, the delivered elements cannot be accounted for separately from the ongoing hosting services, and revenue for the arrangement generally should be recognized as the hosting services (i.e., the last element delivered) are performed. Additionally, as discussed further below, the vendor should consider whether the license fee is actually an up-front fee that should be accounted for over the estimated customer relationship period. Certain hosting arrangements may require the customer to pay an amount at inception of the arrangement (an up-front fee ). Generally, when such fees are not associated with the delivery of a product or service, they do not represent the culmination of the earnings process and, therefore, cannot be recognized at the onset of the arrangement. For example, we believe that a license fee in a hosting arrangement for which it is not feasible to use the license without the hosting (i.e., the arrangement is treated as a service contract) is analogous to a set-up fee. SAB Topic 13 provides guidance on the accounting for such fees, indicating that the receipt of such up-front fees is not a separate earnings process that should result in revenue being recognized for the following reasons: The terms, conditions and amounts of these fees typically are negotiated in conjunction with the pricing of all the elements of the arrangement. The customer would ascribe a significantly lower, and perhaps no, value to elements ostensibly associated with the up-front fee in the absence of the registrant s performance of other contract elements (e.g., the hosting service). The vendor does not sell the initial rights, products or services separately (i.e., without the vendor s continuing involvement). In such situations, the fee should be deferred and recognized over the contractual term of the hosting service or the estimated customer relationship period (which is the assumed estimated period of benefit pursuant to SAB Topic 13), if longer than the hosting contractual period. The following examples illustrate these concepts: Illustration 1-1: All elements are subject to the software revenue recognition guidance, VSOE of fair value of hosting services exists Facts Vendor S enters into an arrangement with Customer C to license software Product and provide hosting services for one year for $1,500,000, which is paid at inception of the arrangement. The arrangement also states that Vendor S will perform implementation services that will allow Customer C to access the hosted software. The software is essential to the services included in the arrangement. The contract states that $1,000,000 is for the software license, $100,000 is for the implementation services and $400,000 is for the first year of hosting services. The hosting services are cancelable with thirty days notice. If cancelled, the customer receives a pro-rata refund of the $400,000 hosting fee. The customer has the contractual right to take possession of the software without incurring a significant penalty, and it is feasible for the customer to run the software on its existing hardware or engage other vendors to host the software. The costs to take possession of the software, or to transfer the hosting services to a third party, are $25,000. VSOE of fair value of the hosting services is $500,000 based on annual renewals of the services. VSOE of fair value of the implementation services does not exist. Financial reporting developments Software Revenue recognition 12