loan. [IAS 20.10].
Example 25.1: Government grant by way of forgivable loan
An entity participates in a government-sponsored research and development programme under which it is
entitled to receive a government grant of up to 50% of the costs incurred for a particular project. The
government grant is interest-bearing and fully repayable based on a percentage (‘royalty’) of the sales revenue
of any products developed. Although the repayment period is not limited, no repayment is required if there
are no sales of the products.
The entity should account for this type of government grant as follows:
• initially recognise the government grant as a liability;
• apply the principles underlying the effective interest rate method in subsequent periods, which would
involve estimating the amount and timing of future cash flows;
• review at each reporting date whether there is reasonable assurance that the entity will meet the terms
for forgiveness of the loan, i.e. the entity assesses that the product will not achieve sales. If this is the
case then derecognise part or all of the liability initially recorded with a corresponding profit in the
income statement; and
• if the entity subsequently revises its estimates of future sales upwards, it recognises a liability for any
amounts previously included in profit and recognises a corresponding loss in the income statement.
However, an arrangement only meets the definition of a forgivable loan if its terms
provide for circumstances where repayment would be waived (i.e. forgiven), without
any other form of settlement. In Example 25.1 above, the entity either repays some or
all of the loan if the project generates any sales or, in the event that no sales are made,
its liability is waived in full, with no further recourse to the government. In May 2016,
the Interpretations Committee concluded on a request to clarify whether cash received
to help an entity finance a research and development project would be treated as a
forgivable loan in the following specific circumstances:2
Government
grants
1781
• the loan was repayable only if the entity decided to exploit and commercialise the
results of the research phase of the project;
• otherwise, the loan was not repayable in cash but instead the entity was required
to transfer to the government the rights to the research.
The Interpretations Committee noted that, in this arrangement, the cash received did
not meet the definition of a forgivable loan under IAS 20, because the government did
not undertake to waive repayment of the loan but instead required settlement in cash
or by the transfer of rights to the research. In other words, the entity could only avoid
repayment by settling a non-financial obligation (to hand over the rights to the
research). This requirement confirms the status of the cash receipt as a financial
liability under IAS 32 – Financial Instruments: Presentation. [IAS 32.20(a)]. The
Committee also noted that the financial liability should be measured under IFRS 9.
Any difference between the cash receipt and the fair value of the liability would need
to be accounted for under IAS 20 as discussed at 3.4 below. The Interpretations
Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda on the basis that existing
standards provide an adequate basis of accounting.3
3.4
Loans at lower than market rates of interest
IAS 20 requires government loans that have a below-market rate of interest to be
recognised and measured in accordance with IFRS 9. [IAS 20.10A, IFRS 9.5.1.1]. The loans
could be interest-free. The difference between the initial carrying value of the loan (its
fair value) and the proceeds received is treated as a government grant.
[IAS 20.10A, IFRS 9.B5.1.1].
Example 25.2: Interest-free loan from a government agency
Company A secures an interest-free loan of €1,000 from a local government agency to ensure that the
company invests in new equipment at its manufacturing facility. The loan is repayable over five years and
carries no interest. Company A can draw down the loan on demonstrating that it has incurred qualifying
expenditure on property, plant and equipment.
On initial recognition, the market rate of interest for a similar five year loan with payment of interest at
maturity is 10% per year. The initial fair value of the loan is the present value of the future payment of
€1,000, discounted using the market rate of interest for a similar loan of 10% for five years. This equates
to €621.
The fair value of the government incentive to Company A to invest in its factory is €379, the difference
between the total consideration received of €1,000 and the loan’s initial fair value of €621. This difference is
treated as a government grant.
Subsequently, interest will be imputed to the loan using the effective interest method,
taking account of any transaction costs (see Chapter 45 at 3.3.1). The grant will not
necessarily be released on a basis that is consistent with the interest expense. The
standard stresses that the entity has to consider the conditions and obligations that have
been, or must be, met when ‘identifying the costs for which the benefit of the loan is
intended to compensate’. [IAS 20.10A]. This process of matching the benefit to costs is
discussed at 3.5 below.
As well as routine subsidised lending to meet specific objectives, loans made as part of
government rescue plans are generally within scope of IAS 20 if they are at a lower than
1782 Chapter 25
market rate of interest. In 2009 PSA Peugeot Citroën received assistance from the
European Investment Bank as described in Extract 25.1 below.
Extract 25.1: PSA Peugeot Citroën (2009)
Half-Year Financial Report 2009 [extract]
17.2. REFINANCING TRANSACTIONS [extract]
– EIB loan
In April 2009, Peugeot Citroën Automobiles S.A. obtained a €400 million 4-year bullet loan from the European
Investment Bank (EIB). Interest on the loan is based on the 3-month Euribor plus 179 bps. At June 30, 2009 the
government bonds (OATs) given by Peugeot S.A. as collateral for all EIB loans to Group companies had a market
value of €160 million. In addition, 4,695,000 Faurecia shares held by Peugeot S.A. were pledged to the EIB as
security for the loans. The interest rate risk on the new EIB loan has not been specifically hedged.
This new loan is at a reduced rate of interest. The difference between the market rate of interest for an equivalent loan at the inception date and the rate granted by the EIB has been recognised as a government grant in accordance with
IAS 20. The grant was originally valued at €38 million and was recorded as a deduction from the capitalized
development costs financed by the loan. It is being amortised on a straight-line basis over the life of the underlying
projects. The loan is measured at amortised cost, in the amount of €362 million at June 30, 2009. The effective interest
rate is estimated at 5.90%.
This will also affect the manner in which arrangements that are similar in substance to
loans are accounted for.
Governments sometimes provide assistance by allowing entities to retain sums that they
collect on behalf of the government (e.g. value added taxes) until a future event, as in
the following example:
Example 25.3: Entity allowed to retain amounts owed to government
The local government of an underdeveloped region is trying to stimulate investment by allowing local
companies to delay payment of the value added tax (VAT) on their sales. An entity participating in this
scheme is entitled to retain an amount up to 40% of its investment in fixed assets. The retained VAT must be
paid to the local government after 5 years.
In this example, the fact that amounts retained by the entity are required to be repaid
after 5 years makes this arrangement similar in nature to an interest free loan.
Accordingly, the entity would determine a value for the government assistance by
comparing the amounts retained to the fair value of a 5 year loan at market rates of
interest, as illustrated in Example 25.2 above. In determining an appropriate basis for
recognising the benefit of the grant in profit or loss, the entity has to consider the
conditions and obligations that have been, or must be, met when ‘identifying the costs
for which the benefit of the loan is intended to compensate’. [IAS 20.10A]. In the example
above, because the grant is intended to stimulate investment in fixed assets, an
acceptable approach would be deferral in line with depreciation of the relevant assets
while recognition immediately in profit or loss upon occurrence of sales would generally
not be appropriate. The judgement involved in matching the benefit to costs is discussed
at 3.5 below.
Government
grants
1783
3.5
Recognition in the income statement
Grants should be recognised in the income statement on a systematic basis that matches
them with the related costs that they are intended to compensate. [IAS 20.12]. They should
not be credited directly to shareholders’ funds. Income recognition on a receipts basis,
which is not in accordance with the accruals accounting assumption, is only acceptable
if there is no basis for allocating a grant to periods other than the one in which it is
received. [IAS 20.16].
IAS 20 rejects a ‘capital approach’, under which a grant is recognised outside profit or
loss (typically credited directly to equity), [IAS 20.13], in favour of the ‘income approach’,
under which grants are taken to income over one or more periods, because:
(a) government grants are receipts from a source other than shareholders. As such,
they should not be credited directly to equity but should be recognised in profit or
loss in appropriate periods;
(b) government grants are rarely gratuitous. An entity earns them through compliance
with their conditions and meeting the envisaged obligations. They should therefore
be recognised in profit or loss over the periods in which the entity recognises the
associated costs which the grant is intended to compensate; and
(c) as income and other taxes are expenses, it is logical to deal also with government
grants, which are an extension of fiscal policies, in profit or loss. [IAS 20.15].
IAS 20 envisages that in most cases, the periods over which an entity recognises the
costs or expenses related to the government grant are readily ascertainable and thus
grants in recognition of specific expenses are recognised as income in the same period
as the relevant expense. [IAS 20.17].
Grants related to depreciable assets are usually recognised as income over the periods,
and in the proportions, in which depreciation on those assets is charged. [IAS 20.17].
Grants related to non-depreciable assets may also require the fulfilment of certain
obligations, in which case they would be recognised as income over the periods in
which the costs of meeting the obligations are incurred. For example, a grant of land
may be conditional upon the erection of a building on the site and it may be appropriate
to recognise it as income over the life of the building. [IAS 20.18].
IAS 20 acknowledges that grants may be received as part of a package of financial or
fiscal aids to which a number of conditions are attached. In such cases, the standard
indicates that care is needed in identifying the conditions giving rise to the costs and
expenses which determine the periods over which the grant will be earned. It may also
be appropriate to allocate part of the grant on one basis and part on another. [IAS 20.19].
Where a grant relates to expenses or losses already incurred, or for the purpose of giving
immediate financial support to the entity with no future related costs, the grant should
be recognised in income when it becomes receivable. If such a grant is recognised as
income of the period in which it becomes receivable, the entity should disclose its
effects to ensure that these are clearly understood. [IAS 20.20-22].
1784 Chapter 25
Many of the problems in accounting for government grants relate to that of interpreting
the requirement to match the grant with the related costs, particularly because of the
international context in which IAS 20 is written. It does not address specific questions
that relate to particular types of grant that are available in individual countries.
3.5.1
Achieving the most appropriate matching
The requirement to match the grant against the costs that it is intended to compensate
can be difficult to apply in practice, because the essential purpose of the grant may be
far from clear and, therefore, what costs are being subsidised. Moreover, grants are
sometimes given for a particular kind of expenditure that forms an element of a larger
project, making the allocation a highly subjective matter. For example, in trying to
determine an appropriate accounting policy for government assistance that is in the
form of a training grant, an entity might consider recognition in income in any of the
following ways:
(a) matching against direct training costs;
(b) taking over a period of time against the salary costs of the employees being trained,
for example over the estimated duration of the project;
(c) taking over the estimated period for which the company or the employees are
expected to benefit from the training;
(d) matching against total project costs together with other project grants receivable;
(e) taking to income systematically over the life of the project, for example the total
grant receivable may be allocated to revenue on a straight-line basis;
(f) allocating against project costs or income over the period over which the grant is
paid (instead of over the project life); or
(g) taking to income when received in cash.
Determining a reasonable approach is dependent on the specific facts and
circumstances, including those relating to the context in which the grant was offered;
the conditions attached to it; and the consequences of failing to meet those conditions.
There may be a number of acceptable approaches to achieve this; our observations on
these alternative methods are as follows:
Under method (a), the grant could be recognised as income considerably in advance of
its receipt, since often the major part of the direct training costs will be incurred at the
beginning of a project and payment is usually made retrospectively. As the total grant
receivable may be s
ubject to adjustment, this may lead to a mismatch of costs and
income. Therefore, as well as matching with the related expenditure, the policy should
also reflect the conditions giving rise to the entity’s entitlement to receive the grant.
Methods (b) to (e) all rely on different interpretations of the expenditure to which the
grant is expected to contribute, and could all represent an appropriate form of matching.
In these circumstances, an entity should also take account of any conditions attached to
the grant that give rise to withdrawal of support or a requirement to refund amounts
already received.
Method (f) might have less to commend it, because a policy linked to the period over
which the grant is paid might not properly reflect the period over which the related costs
Government
grants
1785
to be compensated are incurred. [IAS 20.12]. However, the period of payment of the grant
could in some circumstances give an indication (in the absence of better evidence) of the
duration of the project for which the expenditure is to be subsidised. For example, where
payment of grant is secured by submitting a summary of project expenditure incurred to
date, and there are no provisions for refund, such an approach could be appropriate.
Similarly, method (g) is unlikely to be the most appropriate method per se, because it is
not obviously linked to the recognition of the related expenditure. However, in some
situations it may approximate to one of the other methods, or may, in the absence of
any conclusive indication as to the expenditure intended to be subsidised by the grant,
be the only practicable method that can be adopted.
In some jurisdictions grants are taxed as income on receipt; consequently, this is often
the argument advanced for taking grants to income when received in cash. However, it
is clear that the treatment of an item for tax purposes does not necessarily determine its
treatment for accounting purposes, and immediate recognition in the income statement
may result in an unacceptable departure from the principle that government grants
should be matched with the costs that they are intended to compensate. [IAS 20.16].
Consequently, the recognition of a grant in the income statement in a different period
International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards Page 351