Listened to CalCPA’s virtual Not-for-profit conference today.
Lots of great stuff during the sessions. Three items were worth sharing on Twitter during the day. Thought I’d share them here as well:
How to account for PPP forgiveness.
GIK valuation.
Why are regulators so focused on board governance?
In case the tweets don’t display correctly, here is the text:
- Accounting for PPP forgiveness by NFPs, first thoughts starting to firm up – personal opinion of presenter at CalCPA NFP conference: two models emerging on how to assess.
- How to conceptualize forgiveness accounting – 1st, loan concept, upon being released, would have gain on being released from loan. 2nd, grant concept, upon clearing all barriers, recognize grant revenue.
- AICPA is reportedly working on a document to explain those two approaches. Keep in mind this (update: oops, should be these) are evolving issues. First glance is helpful for all of us.
- NFP Reporting for GIK exposure draft – Comments by FASB staff person at CalCPA NFP conference: Comment period is closed. Project goes to board on 6/10/20 to consider comments. Goal/hope/plan is for final document in summer 2020.
- Additional (personal) comment by presenter: This is the first round of changes. Later the staff and board will consider if something is needed to address concern regulators for valuation of GIK
- Charity board governance: Presenter at @Cal_CPA #NFP Conference: Why are there so many questions on 990 and RRF-1 about board governance? Perception of regulators is that behind most failures in charities there is a board that was asleep at the switch.
Thanks Jim. I can see accounting for the PPP either way. Bottom line is that forgiveness will be some sort of income or gain – I suppose calling it a gain may emphasize it’s non-recurring nature.
I’m hoping that the SBA will be clear on forgiveness – hopefully a clear letter stating the amount forgiven. If it’s full of hedges, or is taking forever to get, there would be some judgement on booking the gain (or freeing from restriction).
Hi Jim:
I can see each of the approaches would be a strong position. Hadn’t thought about your point – classification as gain would highlight the non recurring nature and visually separate it from the contributions line.
Agree with you that there still needs to be more definition on the forgiveness methodology.
Saw a great tweet from someone (didn’t make note of who it was) that the volume of loans under a small threshold (about 200K or 100K if I recall) is over two million. He suggested a blanket forgiveness of that entire range of loans. Imagine the amount of time that would save banks, from not having to focus half an hour or hour on even reading those forgiveness packages, each of which will consist of 10 or 50 pages of detail. Imagine the time saved for SBA of not having to even consider a few million files. Won’t even ponder the time saved by the accountants for those couple million businesses and charities.
Thanks for taking the time to read and to comment.
Stay safe!
Jim