{"id":205665,"date":"2017-07-14T05:44:30","date_gmt":"2017-07-14T09:44:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/fasb-eyes-cloud-computing-implementation-costs-accounting-today-accounting-today\/"},"modified":"2017-07-14T05:44:30","modified_gmt":"2017-07-14T09:44:30","slug":"fasb-eyes-cloud-computing-implementation-costs-accounting-today-accounting-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/cloud-computing\/fasb-eyes-cloud-computing-implementation-costs-accounting-today-accounting-today\/","title":{"rendered":"FASB eyes cloud computing implementation costs | Accounting Today &#8211; Accounting Today"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    The Private Company Council discussed the implementation costs    of cloud computing during a meeting Tuesday and is asking its    associated organization, the Financial Accounting Standards    Board, to provide guidance on how to account for those costs.  <\/p>\n<p>    During the meeting, PCC members confirmed that accounting for    implementation costs in a cloud computing arrangement is a    prevalent issue for private companies. A PCC member also    recommended FASB provide application guidance to specify the    types of implementation costs that may be appropriate for    capitalization.  <\/p>\n<p>    Two years ago, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2015-05,    which provides guidance about a customers accounting for fees    paid in a cloud computing or hosting arrangement. In general,    an entity evaluates a cloud computing arrangement to determine    whether the arrangement provides the entity with control of a    license to internal-use software. In comment letters on the    exposure draft that led to the update, some of FASBs    stakeholders expressed concerns, however, about the scope of    some of the amendments, and asked for more guidance on    accounting for implementation costs associated with cloud    computing arrangements that dont meet certain criteria and are    instead considered service contracts.  <\/p>\n<p>    They argued that, without explicit guidance, diversity in    practice would continue when accounting for implementation    costs such as setup and other upfront fees. The costs can    include training, creating or installing an interface,    reconfiguring existing systems, and reformatting data.    Companies have looked at different parts of the standards for    guidance on how to account for such implementation costs in    cloud computing arrangements that are considered a service    contract because there is no explicit guidance on them right    now.  <\/p>\n<p>    At a FASB meeting in May, the board decided to add the matter    to the agenda of the Emerging Issues Task Force. The EITF plans    to discuss it at a meeting next Friday.  <\/p>\n<p>    Also at Tuesdays PCC meeting, FASBs staff delivered updates    and the PCC provided feedback on a number of other FASB    projects, including targeted improvements to the related-party    guidance for variable interest entities during consolidations.    PCC members commended FASB for proposing an alternative for    private companies to provide a scope exception from the    application of the VIE guidance to companies that are under    common control, when certain requirements are met.  <\/p>\n<p>    PCC members also supported FASBs plans for targeted    improvements in liabilities and equity to simplify the    accounting of financial instruments with down rounds. The PCC    also offered feedback on FASBs proposal for nonemployee    share-based payment accounting improvements and expressed    support for the private company alternatives within the    proposal.  <\/p>\n<p>    Many PCC members lent their support to FASBs continuing    implementation and education efforts for recently issued    standards but suggested the board should keep in mind the pace    of change when considering possible new projects.  <\/p>\n<p>    A majority of PCC members recommended FASB finalize its    proposed guidance on the balance sheet classification of debt,    along with some minor improvements on balance sheet    presentation. The members also expressed interest in helping    FASB decide on the appropriate transition provisions to make    and educational efforts.  <\/p>\n<p>    FASB and the PCC plan to hold a Town Hall meeting on August 31    in conjunction with the Georgia Society of CPAs. The next PCC    meeting will happen on September 19.<\/p>\n<p>          Michael Cohn, editor-in-chief of AccountingToday.com, has          been covering business and technology for a variety of          publications since 1985.        <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the article here: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.accountingtoday.com\/news\/fasb-eyes-cloud-computing-implementation-costs\" title=\"FASB eyes cloud computing implementation costs | Accounting Today - Accounting Today\">FASB eyes cloud computing implementation costs | Accounting Today - Accounting Today<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The Private Company Council discussed the implementation costs of cloud computing during a meeting Tuesday and is asking its associated organization, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, to provide guidance on how to account for those costs. During the meeting, PCC members confirmed that accounting for implementation costs in a cloud computing arrangement is a prevalent issue for private companies. A PCC member also recommended FASB provide application guidance to specify the types of implementation costs that may be appropriate for capitalization.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/cloud-computing\/fasb-eyes-cloud-computing-implementation-costs-accounting-today-accounting-today\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[257743],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cloud-computing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205665"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205665\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}