GASB 81: Five quick steps to irrevocable

split-interest

agreement success

Editor's note: read this if you are a leader in higher education. 

The Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education posted an Electronic Announcement on April 3, 2020, to provide an update to the policy and operational guidance issued in March as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic national emergency. 

In addition to extending the March 5, 2020 guidance to apply to payment periods or terms beginning between March 5, 2020 and June 1, 2020, the Department has confirmed the temporary closure will not result in loss of institutional eligibility or participation. A few other changes to note:

• Leaves of absence due to COVID-19-related concerns or limitations (such as interruption of a travel-abroad program) can be requested after the date the leave has begun.
• Updates to the academic calendar requirements will allow institutions to offer courses on a schedule that would otherwise cause the program to be considered a non-standard term if it allows students to complete the term.
• Calculated expected family contribution amounts will exclude from income any grants or low-interest loans received by victims of an emergency from a federal or state entity as part of the needs analysis.

One trend that continues to permeate the Department’s guidance is for institutions to document, as contemporaneously as possible, actions taken as a result of COVID-19 (including professional judgment decisions, on a case-by-case basis). 

The Department will be issuing more guidance on the impact of the CARES Act on R2T4 calculations, satisfactory academic progress requirements, the extension of the single audit by the Office of Management and Budget, and the potential impact to future FISAP filings. We highly recommend you read the full announcement as it outlines a wide variety of important details. 

Questions? Please contact Renee Bishop, Sarah Belliveau, or Mark LaPrade. We’re here to help.

Not-for-profit board members need to wear many hats for the organization they serve. Every board member begins their term with a different set of skills, often chosen specifically for those unique abilities. As board members, we often assist the organization in raising money and as such, it is important for all members of the board to be fluent in the language of fundraising. Here are some basic definitions you need to know, and the differences between them.

Gifts with donor restriction

While many organizations can use all donations for their operating costs, many donors prefer to specify how―or when―they can use the donation. Gift restrictions come in several forms:

1.    Purpose-restricted gifts are, as their name implies, for a specific use. These can be in response to a request from your organization for that specific purpose or the donor can indicate its purpose when they make the gift. Consider how you solicit gifts from donors to be sure you don’t inadvertently apply restrictions. Not all gifts need to (or even should) be accepted by an organization, so take care in considering if specific restrictions are in line with your mission. 

2.    Time-restricted gifts can come with or without a restricted purpose. You can treat gifts for future periods as revenue today, though the funds would be considered restricted for use until the time restrictions have lapsed. These are often in the form of pledges of gifts for the future, but can also be actual donations provided today for use in coming years.

3.    Some donors prefer the earnings of their gift be available for use, while their actual donation be held in perpetuity. These are often in the form of endowments and specific restrictions may or may not be placed by the donor on the endowment’s earnings. Laws can differ from state-to-state for the treatment of those earnings, but your investment policy should govern the spending from these earnings.

The bottom line? Restricted-purpose gifts must be used for that restricted purpose.

Gifts without restriction are always welcome by organizations. The board has the ability to direct the spending of these gifts, and may designate funds for a future purpose, but unlike gifts with donor restrictions, the board does have the discretion to change their own designations.

Whether raising money or reviewing financial information, understanding fundraising language is key for board members to make the most out of donations. See A CPA’s guide to starting a capital campaign and Accounting 101 for development directors blogs for more information. Have questions or want to learn more? Please contact Emily Parker or Sarah Belliveau.

As 2018 is about to come to a close, organizations with fiscal year ends after December 15, 2018, are poised to start implementing the new not-for-profit reporting standard. Here are three areas to address before the close of the fiscal year to set your organization up for a smooth and successful transition, and keep in compliance:

1. Update and approve policies—organizations need to both change certain disclosures and add new ones. The policies in place at the end of the year will be pivotal in creating the framework within which to draft these new disclosures (for example, treatment of board designations, underwater endowments, and liquidity).
2. Functional expense reporting—if you have not historically reported expenses by natural and functional classification, develop the methodology for cost allocation. If you already have a framework in place, revisit it to determine if this still fits your organization. Finally, determine where you will present this information in the financial statements.
3. Internal investment costs—be sure you have a methodology to segregate the organization’s internal investment costs such as internal staff time (remember, this is the cost to generate the income, not account for it) and consider the overall disclosure.

While the implementation of the new reporting standard will not be without cost (both internal costs and audit costs), if your organization considers this an opportunity to better tell your story, the end result will be a much more useful financial narrative. Don’t forget to include the BerryDunn implementation whitepaper in your implementation strategy.

We at BerryDunn are helping organizations gain momentum with a personal touch, through our not-for-profit reporting checkup. This checkup includes initial recast of the prior financial statements to the new format, a personalized review of the checklist to identify opportunities for success, and consideration of the footnotes to be updated. Contact me and find out how you can join the list of organizations getting ahead of the new standard.

With the wind down of the Federal Perkins Loan Program and announcement that the Federal Capital Contribution (FCC) (the federal funds contributed to the loan program over time) will begin to be repaid, higher education institutions must now decide how to handle these outstanding loans. The Department of Education’s (DOE)’s plans to recover their FCC (or “distribution of assets”) in the coming 2018-19 year can be found here, with the Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP) playing a crucial role in the close-out excess cash calculation. Colleges and universities are now faced with two options:

1. Continue servicing their loans, refunding future FCC excess cash as loans are repaid
2. Assigning loans back to the DOE (subject to certain requirements)

Colleges and universities have been evaluating these options since the decision was made to not renew the loan program. There are many considerations when deciding which path to choose:

• Continuing to service loans has the disadvantage of ongoing administrative costs. While there is potential an administrative cost allowance could be paid to institutions that continue to service loans in the future, legislation would need to be enacted for this to occur.
• In assigning loans back to the DOE, the institution will lose any Institutional Capital Contribution (ICC).  It is important to note the decision of whether or not to assign loans has not reached “now or never” status. You can assign loans your institution continues to service to the DOE in the future.

NACUBO recently published advisory guidance on the Perkins Loan Program close-out. This guidance provides a broader look at the close-out process, and explores the ramifications of how the two options above can impact alumni relations. The guidance also provides a useful cost/benefit calculation template and sample accounting entries for the close-out process.

Need help or have additional questions? Our experience with Perkins Loan liquidation/closeout can help as you plot a course through the Perkins wind down.

NEW UPDATE October 2017:

The Federal Perkins Loan Program expiration date has passed without extension and now the countdown is on for the program wind-down. On October 6, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter, GEN-17-10, which provides important wind-down information and indicates the Department will begin collecting the Federal share of institutions’ Perkins Loan Revolving Funds following the submission of the 2019-2020 FISAP (due October 1, 2018) using a similar process to the Excess Liquid Capital currently in place under HEA section 466(c). The Department of Education has promised more information on this process ahead of the October 2018 deadline.

Institutions should be reviewing their portfolios to determine if they will choose to assign their Perkins Loans to the Department or continue servicing their portfolio. Once the loans are assigned, institutions lose all rights to future loan collections, including their institutional share.

Loans that are not assigned to the department should continue to be serviced under Perkins Loan Program regulations until all loans are paid in full, fully retired or assigned to the Department. The process of requiring the distribution of assets from the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund will continue each year based on the annual submission of the FISAP, until all of the Perkins Loans held by the institution have been paid in full, fully retired or assigned to the Department of Education.

An administrative cost allowance cannot be charged against the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund after June 30, 2018.

For those considering liquidation and assignment, the Assignment and Liquidation Guide provides step-by-step instructions through the process, including the required a Perkins closeout audit. We are experienced with the Perkins closeout and stand ready to assist.
 

NEW UPDATE March 30, 2016: 

A new combined Federal Perkins Loan Assignment and Liquidation Guide has been posted. You can see the announcement and links to the updated guide here.

The Federal Perkins Loan Program has expired, effective October 1. While guidance has not yet been issued by the Department of Education in response to program’s expiration, there is a published process for institutions to follow to liquidate a Perkins Loan Revolving Fund.

We'll keep you informed as guidance is issued

BerryDunn’s Higher Education experts are monitoring the situation and assessing the implications for colleges and universities and their loan recipients with outstanding balances.

Need help or have additional questions?

Our experience with Perkins loan liquidation/closeout audits can be of great help to you as you navigate the complexities of closing your Perkins loans. Feel free to contact Renee Bishop, Emily Parker, Mark LaPrade or any of our Higher Education experts.

With the implementation of GASB 72 now in full force, GASB organizations are hard at work drafting their new fair value disclosures. The addition of a fair value hierarchy table in the footnotes will add a bit more thickness to a likely already hefty financial package. With this added material comes valuable information for many financial statement users, including a much better explanation of the valuation approach of assets and liabilities reported at fair value.

Since GASB 72 (formally Fair Value Measurement and Application, effective for financial statement periods beginning after June 15, 2015) comes a few years after a similar FASB implementation, most investment professionals have dealt with the growing pains of the FASB implementation, and are well poised to provide the information necessary for the new fair value disclosures.

However, there are a few other things we have learned from the FASB implementation that can be shared with the GASB financial statement preparers:

• The unit of account is a big deal. While investments held by organizations may be specific stocks regularly traded on the open market (here’s a tip: these are level 1); there are other investment vehicles where an organization’s investment share represents a portion of a fund that holds all kinds of other investments (level 1? Maybe, maybe not – you will need to dig deeper). The good news is, with these kinds of investments, the organization is disclosing the level within the fair value hierarchy of their investment - the share of the fund. This is not the same as the level of the investments held within the fund. This is an important distinction and should result in much less time and effort in determining the appropriate level for an investment. GASB 72 uses the example of a mutual fund. An organization owns a share of the mutual fund, not the underlying investments, therefore the disclosure requirement is for the share of the mutual fund, not the underlying assets.
• GASB 72 requires investments measured at net asset value to be reconciling items to the fair value disclosure, but does not require these assets to be listed by level in the table (a recent change to the FASB). Further, a roll forward of level 3 items from year to year was also excluded.
   
• If you have heard of GASB 72, then likely you have heard of the three levels. The required disclosure includes three categories of valuation to be disclosed (aptly named level 1, level 2 and level 3). With each level, comes more involvement (or even, difficulty) in determining the fair value that is recorded. The new disclosure will make it clearer to the users of the financial statements how fair value is being measured.
   
• GASB 72 does provide some guidance in determining fair value through the use of one or more of the following valuation approaches: market approach, cost approach, or the income approach. GASB 72 discusses each of these separately, but remember there can be more than one approach, and not all items are measured equally.
• When you think about fair value, don’t focus solely on the investments, or even only on the assets. Liabilities are in there too! Think of measuring a warranty liability, for example.

We have the advantage of hindsight after the FASB implementation. I have great hope, that as with FASB, after the initial pain of the GASB 72 implementation, once our tables are setup, and a process is in place for identifying levels, our financial statements will be much more transparent, giving us all a clearer picture of the organization.

Please contact Emily Parker if you have questions on the latest GASB updates.

The recently released exposure draft of the Implementation Guide for Fiduciary Activities from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board begins to shed additional light on how governments should be implementing GASB 84 Fiduciary Activities. Organizations have been anxiously awaiting the proposed guide as the standard is effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2018.

The basic premise behind GASB 84 is to provide better financial reporting for organizations that have an inherent fiduciary responsibility for funds they hold, a concept that has not been historically required for some entities and inconsistently applied by others in the past.

The statement breaks down the four major categories of fiduciary funds that should be reported:

1. Pension (and other employee benefit) trust funds
2. Investment trust funds
3. Private-purpose trust funds
4. Custodial funds

As organizations have been preparing for implementation, questions continue to arise about which of their numerous activities really fall under the purview of GASB 84. The implementation guide takes a step to answer some of those questions.

The exposure draft answers some of the basic employee benefit plan questions that have been posed as a result of the standard (though largely through reference to criteria found in other GASB standards―like a “choose your own adventure” for accountants), but also delves into specifics around treatment of cemetery association funds, chess club fundraising and student activity fees.

The Exposure Draft is well worth the read at this early stage, especially as it digs into what constitutes “control” under GASB 84. Comments on the Exposure Draft are due by February 28, 2019.

Under the old lease reporting standards, there were many similarities between governmental and non-governmental standards, so when FASB changed its guidance on leases last year, many expected a carbon copy of that from GASB. GASB did not follow suit with GASB 87.

The major difference between GASB 87 and FASB ASU 2016-02, (February 2016), is the accounting treatment for operating leases. Unlike FASB, GASB treats all leases as financing—there is no distinction between operating and financing lease classifications and you will have to report operating leases on the statement of net position.

There are two primary reasons why GASB strayed from FASB and felt changes to the existing standards were necessary:

1. Under the new statement, lessees and lessors have to report leases under a single model and GASB felt this change improves comparability of financial statements, and;
2. GASB felt expanded disclosures which relate to the timing, significance and purpose of the leasing arrangements provide financial statement users with useful decision-making information.

GASB 87 was published on June 28, 2017 (effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019). Early adoption is permitted with these impending changes coming. Some terms you need to know about:

Lease term: the period during which a lessee has a noncancelable right to use an underlying asset. Clauses, events and options within the lease agreement will likely result in modifications to the original lease term.

Short-term lease: maximum possible lease term of 12 months or less. Recognize lease payments as outflows or inflows of resources by the lessee and lessor.

Here is a brief summary of general accounting treatment by the lessee and lessor under GASB 87.

Other transactions to consider:

• Sublease: if the original lessee becomes a lessor in a sublease, account for the original lease and the sublease as separate transactions.
• Sale-leaseback transaction: account for the sale and lease transactions separately. Record the difference between the carrying value of asset sold and the net proceeds from the sale as a deferred inflow or a deferred outflow of resources — recognize over the term of the lease.
• Lease-leaseback transaction: account for as a net transaction and disclose the gross amount of each portion of the transaction.

Please contact Danielle Baron if you have questions on how to implement GASB 87.

Recently the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) finished its Governmental Accounting Research System (GARS), a full codification of governmental accounting standards. The completion of the project allows preparers easy access to accounting guidance from GASB. The overall project, starting from the codification of older pre-1989 Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) pronouncements in 2010, was focused on pulling together all authoritative guidance, similar to what FASB had done in 2009.

Here’s what we found interesting.

Poking around the GARS (Basic View is free) I was struck by a paragraph surrounded by a thick-lined box that read “The provisions of this Codification need not be applied to immaterial items.” If you have ever read a GASB or FASB pronouncement, you have seen a similar box. But probably, like me, you didn’t fully consider its potential benefits. Understanding this, GASB published an article on its website aimed at (in my opinion) prompting financial statement preparers to consider reducing disclosure for the many clearly insignificant items often included within governmental financial statements.

After issuing more than 80 pronouncements since its inception in 1984, including 19 in the last five years, GASB accounting requirements continue to grow. Many expect the pace to continue, with issues like leases accounting, potential revision of the financial reporting model, and comprehensive review of revenue and expense recognition accounting currently in process. With these additional accounting standards come more disclosure requirements.

With many still reeling from implementation of the disclosure heavy pension guidance, GASB is already under pressure from stakeholders with respect to information overload. Users of financial statements can be easily overwhelmed by the amount of detailed disclosure, often finding it difficult to identify and focus on the most significant issues for the entity. Balancing the perceived need to meet disclosure requirements with the need to highlight significant information can be a difficult task for preparers. Often preparers lean towards providing too much information in an effort to “make sure everything is in there that should be”. So, what can you do to ease the pain?

While the concept of materiality is not addressed specifically in the GASB standards, by working with your auditors there are a number of ways to reduce the overall length and complexity of the statements. We recommend reviewing your financial statements periodically with your auditor, focusing on the following types of questions:

• On the face of the financial statements, are we breaking out items that are clearly inconsequential in nature and the amount?
• Are there opportunities to combine items where appropriate?
• In the notes to the financial statements are we providing excessive details about insignificant items?
• Do we have an excess amount of historical disclosure from years past?
• In the management’s discussion & analysis, is the analysis completed to an appropriate level? Is there discussion on items that are insignificant?

The spirit behind the box is that GASB was specifically thinking about material amounts and disclosures. It was not their intention to clutter the financials with what their article referred to as “nickel and dime” items. With more disclosure requirements on the way, now might be the time to think INSIDE the box.  

For more guidance on this and other GASB information, please contact Rob Smalley.