A seller-lessee may sell an asset for an amount that is different than the fair value of the asset. If the sales proceeds are less than the fair value of the asset, the difference should be recognized as prepaid rent. If the sales proceeds are higher than the fair value of the asset, the excess should be considered additional borrowing.
An off-market adjustment must also be considered when assessing the classification of the leaseback. It is possible that the adjustment could cause an otherwise operating lease to be classified as a finance lease, precluding sale accounting altogether.
Sale price or leaseback payments are less than fair value
The stated sale price of an underlying asset may be less than its fair value, or the present value of the contractual leaseback payments may be less than the present value of market rental payments. A seller-lessee should increase the initial leaseback right-of-use asset for the difference between the sale price and fair value, similar to prepaid rent. This would have the effect of increasing the gain or reducing the loss on sale.
Example LG 6-10 illustrates the seller-lessee’s accounting when the stated sale price of an underlying asset is less than its fair value.
EXAMPLE LG 6-10
Sale and leaseback transaction – seller-lessee sells underlying asset for less than fair value
A seller-lessee purchases manufacturing equipment at a price of $5.5 million, which equals fair value. Shortly after buying the equipment, the seller-lessee sells it to a buyer-lessor for $5 million. The seller-lessee leases back the equipment for 10 years in exchange for annual rent payments of $400,000, payable at the beginning of each year. The seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 6%.
How should the seller-lessee account for the difference between the property’s sales price and its fair value?
Analysis
The seller-lessee sold the underlying asset for $5 million, which is less than its fair value of $5.5 million. The seller-lessee should account for the difference as an adjustment to the initial leaseback right-of-use asset, similar to the accounting for a prepayment of rent. The adjustment also increases the sale price to $5.5 million (for accounting purposes), and as a result, the seller-lessee would not record a loss on sale.
The right-of-use asset is initially equal to the lease liability. The lease liability is $3,120,676, calculated by determining the present value of the contractual lease payments of $4,000,000 at 6%. The off-market adjustment of $500,000 is added to the right-of-use asset. Because the off-market adjustment is accounted for similar to a prepayment of rent to the buyer-lessor (i.e., a day-one payment), it should not be discounted.
The seller-lessee should record the following journal entry to record this transaction.
Dr. Right-of-use asset |
$3,620,676 |
|
|
Cr. Lease liability |
|
$3,120,676 |
|
View table
Sale price or leaseback payments are greater than fair value
The stated sale price of an underlying asset may be greater than its fair value, or the present value of contractual leaseback payments may be greater than the present value of market rental payments.
A seller-lessee should account for the excess of the sale price or leaseback payments over the fair value of the asset as additional financing from the buyer-lessor separate from the lease liability. The initial measurement of the right-of-use asset is not impacted by recording the adjustment as additional financing. The seller-lessee’s total rental payments should be allocated between the lease liability and the additional buyer-lessor financing. If the rent payments contain variable consideration, we believe amounts allocated to the additional buyer-lessor financing should be accounted for by analogy to the interest method described in
ASC 310. See
LG 2.4.5 for information on the allocation of payments between lease liability and financing. See
LI 6.5.1.2 for information on accounting for variable rate loans, which we believe should be applied in these fact patterns.
Example LG 6-11 illustrates the accounting by the seller-lessee when the sale price of an underlying asset is greater than its fair value.
EXAMPLE LG 6-11
Sale and leaseback transaction – seller-lessee sells underlying asset for a price that is greater than fair value
A seller-lessee sells a building with a remaining economic life of 40 years to an unrelated buyer-lessor for a price of $30 million. The seller-lessee’s net carrying amount of the building is $20 million. Simultaneously, the seller-lessee enters into a lease contract with the buyer-lessor for the right to use the asset for 10 years, with annual rental payments of $1 million payable at the end of each year.
The buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset in accordance with the requirements in the revenue standard and therefore the transaction is accounted for as a sale and leaseback by both the seller-lessee and buyer-lessor. Initial direct costs of the transaction are ignored for purposes of this example.
Comparable sales figures of recent transactions for similar properties are readily available. Based on those comparable sales, the estimated fair value of the underlying asset is $28 million. Both the seller-lessee and buyer-lessor determine that these comparable sales provide better evidence to assess whether the transaction is priced off-market than determining the market rental payments of the leaseback. Since the sales price of the underlying asset is not at fair value, both the seller-lessee and buyer-lessor are required to make adjustments to recognize the sale and leaseback transaction at fair value.
The leaseback is classified as an operating lease by both the seller-lessee and buyer-lessor and the seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 6% (the buyer-lessor’s interest rate implicit in the leaseback is not known to the seller-lessee).
How should the seller-lessee account for the amount by which the sales price of the property exceeds its fair value?
Analysis
The seller-lessee sold the building for $30 million, which is greater than its fair value of $28 million. The difference should be recorded by the seller-lessee as additional financing from the buyer-lessor separate from the lease liability.
The right-of-use asset is equal to the lease liability. The lease liability is $5,360,087, calculated as the present value of the contractual lease payments of $10 million at 6% ($7,360,087), less the $2 million off-market adjustment. The financial liability is equal to the difference between the sales price and the fair value of $2 million. The gain on sale is the difference between the sale price ($30 million) and carrying value ($20 million), less the off-market adjustment of $2 million.
The seller-lessee should record the following journal entry to record this transaction.
Dr. Right-of-use asset |
$5,360,087 |
|
|
Cr. Lease liability |
|
$5,360,087 |
|
Cr. Financial liability |
|
$2,000,000 |
|
Cr. Gain on sale |
|
$8,000,000 |
|
View table
Each annual rental payment of $1,000,000 would be allocated pro rata between the lease liability and the financial liability. The amount allocated to the financial liability would be $271,736 ($1,000,000 × [$2,000,000/$7,360,087]). The remaining $728,264 of the total rental payment would be allocated to the lease. The seller-lessee will recognize $728,264 as lease expense each year of the leaseback. The $271,736 represents payment of the financial liability and interest expense. Interest expense is calculated as $120,000 in year 1, declining to $15,381 in year 10 based on an amortization schedule using the 6% incremental borrowing rate.
See
LG 4.4.2 for information on operating lease expense recognition.