Expand
When a sale and leaseback transaction does not qualify for sale accounting, the transaction must be accounted for as a financing transaction by the seller-lessee and a lending transaction by the buyer-lessor, as discussed in ASC 842-40-25-5.

ASC 842-40-25-5

If the transfer of the asset is not a sale in accordance with paragraphs 842-40-25-1 through 25-3, both of the following apply:
a. The seller-lessee shall not derecognize the transferred asset and shall account for any amounts received as a financial liability in accordance with other Topics.
b. The buyer-lessor shall not recognize the transferred asset and shall account for the amounts paid as a receivable in accordance with other Topics.

6.5.1 Accounting for a failed sale and leaseback by a seller-lessee

To account for a failed sale and leaseback transaction as a financing arrangement, the seller-lessee does not derecognize the underlying asset; the seller-lessee continues depreciating the asset as if it was the legal owner. The sales proceeds received from the buyer-lessor should be recognized as a financial liability.

6.5.1.1  Allocation of the leaseback payments by a seller-lessee

A seller-lessee will make rental payments under the leaseback. These payments should be allocated between interest expense and principal repayment of the financial liability. To determine the amount allocated to interest expense, the seller-lessee should use its incremental borrowing rate. However, a seller-lessee may need to adjust the interest rate initially or during the course of the leaseback, as discussed in ASC 842-40-30-6.

ASC 842-40-30-6

The guidance in paragraph 842-40-25-5 notwithstanding, the seller-lessee shall adjust the interest rate on its financial liability as necessary to ensure that both of the following apply:
a. Interest on the financial liability is not greater than the principal payments on the financial liability over the shorter of the lease term and the term of the financing. The term of the financing may be shorter than the lease term because the transfer of an asset that does not qualify as a sale initially may qualify as a sale at a point in time before the end of the lease term.
b. The carrying amount of the asset does not exceed the carrying amount of the financial liability at the earlier of the end of the lease term or the date at which control of the asset will transfer to the buyer-lessor (for example, the dates at which a repurchase option expires if that date is earlier than the end of the lease term).

Interest on the financial liability greater than the principal payments on the financial liability will cause the carrying amount of the financial liability to increase rather than decrease (“negative amortization”). This generally occurs when a seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate results in an allocation of interest expense that exceeds the seller-lessee’s rental payments to the buyer-lessor. When the use of a lessee’s incremental borrowing rate results in negative amortization of the financial liability at the end of the amortization period (the shorter of the lease term or the term of the financing), the seller-lessee should instead use an imputed interest rate that will eliminate the negative amortization. See Example LG 6-12.
A projected net book value of the underlying asset that exceeds the carrying amount of the financial liability at the earlier of (1) the end of the lease term or (2) the date the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset would have the effect of deferring a loss until that time. Similar to adjusting the interest rate to ensure that negative amortization does not occur, a seller-lessee that determines a loss will result from the application of its incremental borrowing rate should use the imputed interest rate. Generally, the imputed interest rate should be the rate that would result in the net carrying value of the underlying asset and the carrying amount of the financial liability being equal at the earlier of the end of the lease term or the date the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset. See ASC 842-40-55-31 through ASC 842-40-55-38 for a detailed example of a failed sale and leaseback transaction requiring adjustment to the seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate due to a projected built-in loss. If an imputed interest rate was used in this circumstance, the rate should not be subsequently lowered if there is an impairment of the underlying asset.
If a seller-lessee accounts for a sale and leaseback transaction as a financing arrangement because there is a repurchase option, unless the purchase option price is fixed and exercise is determined to be reasonably certain at lease commencement, the effective interest rate applied to the financial liability will typically require adjustment when it becomes probable that the repurchase option will be exercised. This is because the effective interest rate determined at lease commencement did not factor in the price of the purchase option. Accordingly, the seller-lessee should adjust the effective interest rate such that the carrying value of the financial liability upon exercise of the option is equivalent to the exercise price of the purchase option. If the repurchase option price is not fixed, the seller-lessee should estimate the exercise price and reflect any subsequent revisions as adjustments to the effective interest rate.
The carrying amount of the asset should not be changed as a result of a financing transaction; therefore, the asset should not be written up upon exercise of the repurchase option.

6.5.1.2 Buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset

A sale may occur at any point in time when the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset during or at the end of a leaseback period. When the sale is ultimately recognized in a previously failed sale and leaseback transaction, the seller-lessee should recognize any remaining balance of the financial liability as the proceeds on the final sale of the underlying asset. The gain or loss equals the difference between those proceeds and the carrying amount of the underlying asset.
If the buyer-lessor obtains control of the underlying asset prior to the end of the leaseback period, the date that control transfers to the buyer-lessor is the lease commencement date for purposes of the seller-lessee initially measuring the right-of-use asset and lease liability.
Example LG 6-13, Example LG 6-14, Example LG 6-15, and Example LG 6-16 illustrate the accounting by the seller-lessee both when the buyer-lessor does and does not obtain control prior to the end of the leaseback term.
EXAMPLE LG 6-13
Failed sale and leaseback – buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the underlying asset prior to the end of the leaseback term
A seller-lessee sells a building for $950,000 cash and agrees to lease the building back for five years. Consider the following facts about this transaction:
  • The net carrying amount of the building as of the date of sale is $800,000
  • The annual leaseback payment is $100,000
  • Annual depreciation expense is $80,000
  • The seller-lessee does not guarantee the residual value of the asset at the end of the leaseback term
  • The seller-lessee has a repurchase option that allows it to buy the building at the then-prevailing fair market value at any time during the lease term
  • The seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 9.3% and the interest rate implicit in the leaseback is not known
How should the seller-lessee account for the sale and leaseback of the building?
Analysis
Because the seller-lessee has a repurchase option and there are no alternative buildings that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace, the buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the building prior to the end of the leaseback term. The transaction does not qualify for sale accounting and should be accounted for as a financing. The net carrying amount of the asset would remain on the seller-lessee’s books and the seller-lessee would continue to record annual depreciation expense of $80,000.
The cash proceeds received from the buyer-lessor would be recorded as a financial liability and the annual lease payments allocated between interest expense and a reduction of the financial liability. Interest expense should be calculated by multiplying the beginning balance of the financial liability by the incremental borrowing rate of 9.3%. In year 1, the seller-lessee would record interest expense of $88,350 ($950,000 × 9.3%). The reduction of the financial liability is calculated as the difference between the annual leaseback payment and the allocation of interest expense ($100,000 payment – interest expense of $88,350 = $11,650).
At the end of the fifth year, the leaseback and repurchase option expire and the buyer-lessor would obtain control of the asset. At that time, the seller-lessee would recognize the sale of the asset and any gain that resulted from removing the underlying asset and financial liability from its books.
The financing method is illustrated below:
Period
Net carrying amount
Asset value
Accumulated depreciation
Financial liability
Reduction of obligation
Interest expense
Inception
$800,000
$1,200,000
$400,000
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
720,000
1,200,000
480,000
938,350
11,650
88,350
Year 2
640,000
1,200,000
560,000
925,617
12,733
87,267
Year 3
560,000
1,200,000
640,000
911,699
13,918
86,082
Year 4
480,000
1,200,000
720,000
896,487
15,212
84,788
Year 5
400,000
1,200,000
800,000
879,860
16,627
83,373
Use of the incremental borrowing rate would not produce unusual results (e.g., a built-in loss or negative amortization). At the end of the five-year leaseback term, the seller-lessee would recognize the sale of the building with a gain of $479,860 (financial liability of $879,860 – $400,000 net carrying amount). The interest rate should not be decreased in order to eliminate recognition of the end-of-transaction gain.
EXAMPLE LG 6-14
Failed sale and leaseback – buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the underlying asset prior to the end of the leaseback term
A seller-lessee sells a building for $950,000 cash and agrees to lease the building back for five years. Consider the following facts about this transaction:
  • The net carrying amount of the building as of the date of sale is $800,000
  • The annual leaseback payment is $75,000
  • Annual depreciation expense is $80,000
  • The seller-lessee does not guarantee the residual value of the asset at the end of the leaseback term
  • The seller-lessee has a repurchase option that allows it to buy the building at the then-prevailing fair market value at any time during the lease term
  • The seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 9.3% and the interest rate implicit in the leaseback is not known
How should the seller-lessee account for the sale and leaseback of the building?
Analysis
Because the seller-lessee has a repurchase option and there are no alternative buildings that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace, the buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the building prior to the end of the leaseback term. The transaction would not qualify for sale accounting and should be accounted for as a financing.
In this case, application of the financing method based on the seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate of 9.3% yields the following:
Period
Net carrying amount
Asset value
Accumulated depreciation
Financial liability
Increase of liability
Interest expense
Inception
$800,000
$1,200,000
$400,000
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
720,000
1,200,000
480,000
963,350
13,350
88,350
Year 2
640,000
1,200,000
560,000
977,942
14,592
89,592
Year 3
560,000
1,200,000
640,000
993,891
15,949
90,949
Year 4
480,000
1,200,000
720,000
1,011,323
17,432
92,432
Year 5
400,000
1,200,000
800,000
1,030,376
19,053
94,053
Use of the seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate results in annual interest expense in excess of annual lease payments of $75,000, which increases the financial liability over the term of the lease (i.e., negative amortization). Since negative amortization is prohibited, the seller-lessee should impute the interest rate that eliminates the negative amortization.
In this example, an imputed interest rate of approximately 7.89% results in interest expense of $75,000, which is equivalent to the annual lease payment. Because the interest expense no longer exceeds the annual lease payment, there would not be any negative amortization.
Application of the financing method based on the imputed interest rate of approximately 7.89% is illustrated below:
Period
Net carrying amount
Asset value
Accumulated depreciation
Financial liability
Increase of liability
Interest expense
Inception
$800,000
$1,200,000
$400,000
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
720,000
1,200,000
480,000
950,000
–
75,000
Year 2
640,000
1,200,000
560,000
950,000
–
75,000
Year 3
560,000
1,200,000
640,000
950,000
–
75,000
Year 4
480,000
1,200,000
720,000
950,000
–
75,000
Year 5
400,000
1,200,000
800,000
950,000
–
75,000
At the end of the five-year leaseback term, the seller-lessee would recognize the sale of the building with a gain of $550,000 (financial liability of $950,000 – $400,000 net carrying amount).
EXAMPLE LG 6-15
Failed sale and leaseback – buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the underlying asset prior to the end of the leaseback term
A seller-lessee sells a building for $950,000 cash and agrees to lease the building back for five years. Consider the following facts about this transaction:
  • The net carrying amount of the building as of the date of sale is $800,000
  • The annual leaseback payment is $200,000
  • Annual depreciation expense is $80,000
  • The seller-lessee does not guarantee the residual value of the asset at the end of the leaseback term
  • The seller-lessee has a repurchase option that allows it to buy the building at the then-prevailing fair market value at any time during the lease term
  • The seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 9.3% and the interest rate implicit in the leaseback is not known
How should the seller-lessee account for the sale and leaseback of the building?
Analysis
Because the seller-lessee has a repurchase option and there are no alternative buildings that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace, the buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the building prior to the end of the leaseback term. The transaction does not qualify for sale accounting and should be accounted for as a financing.
In this case, application of the financing method based on the seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate of 9.3% is illustrated below:
Period
Net carrying amount
Asset value
Accumulated depreciation
Financial liability
Reduction of liability
Interest expense
Inception
$800,000
$1,200,000
$400,000
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
720,000
1,200,000
480,000
838,350
111,650
88,350
Year 2
640,000
1,200,000
560,000
716,317
122,033
77,967
Year 3
560,000
1,200,000
640,000
582,934
133,383
66,617
Year 4
480,000
1,200,000
720,000
437,147
145,787
54,213
Year 5
400,000
1,200,000
800,000
277,802
159,345
40,655
Use of the seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate results in a financial liability of $277,802, which is less than the asset’s carrying amount of $400,000; therefore, a built-in loss exists. Since a built-in loss is prohibited, the seller-lessee would increase the interest rate until the financial liability equaled the expected carrying value of the asset. In this example, an imputed interest rate of approximately 11.93% is required.
The financing method based on the imputed interest rate of 11.93% is illustrated below:
Period
Net carrying amount
Asset value
Accumulated depreciation
Financial liability
Reduction of liability
Interest expense
Inception
$800,000
$1,200,000
$400,000
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
720,000
1,200,000
480,000
863,297
86,703
113,297
Year 2
640,000
1,200,000
560,000
766,255
97,043
102,957
Year 3
560,000
1,200,000
640,000
657,638
108,618
91,384
Year 4
480,000
1,200,000
720,000
536,069
121,570
78,430
Year 5
400,000
1,200,000
800,000
400,000
136,068
63,932
Since the financial liability and net carrying amount of the asset are equal on the date the buyer-lessor obtains control, the seller-lessee would recognize the sale of the building with no gain or loss.
EXAMPLE LG 6-16
Failed sale and leaseback – seller-lessee sells asset and buyer-lessor obtains control of the underlying asset prior to the end of the leaseback term
A seller-lessee sells a building for $950,000 cash and agrees to lease the building back for five years. Consider the following facts about this transaction:
  • The net carrying amount of the building as of the date of sale is $800,000
  • The annual leaseback payment is $100,000
  • Annual depreciation expense is $80,000
  • The seller-lessee does not guarantee the residual value of the asset at the end of the leaseback term
  • The seller-lessee has a repurchase option that allows it to buy the building at the then-prevailing fair market value at any time during the lease term
  • The seller-lessee’s incremental borrowing rate is 9.3% and the interest rate implicit in the leaseback is not known
Assume the lease contract is modified at the end of the third year to remove the seller-lessee’s repurchase option. As a result, the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset at the end of the third year.
How should the seller-lessee account for the sale and leaseback of the building?
Analysis
Because the seller-lessee has a repurchase option and there are no alternative buildings that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace, the buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the building at the transaction effective date. The transaction would not qualify for sale accounting and should be accounted for as a financing at the transaction effective date.
At the end of the third year, due to the modification, the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset. At that time, the seller-lessee would recognize the sale of the asset and any gain that resulted from removing the underlying asset and financial liability from its books.
Application of the financing method for this scenario is illustrated below:
Period
Net carrying amount
Asset value
Accumulated depreciation
Financial liability
Reduction of liability
Interest expense
Inception
$800,000
$1,200,000
$400,000
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
720,000
1,200,000
480,000
938,350
11,650
88,350
Year 2
640,000
1,200,000
560,000
925,617
12,733
87,267
Year 3
560,000
1,200,000
640,000
911,699
13,918
86,082
At the end of the third year when the repurchase option is removed, the seller-lessee would assess the classification of the lease because the lease was contractually modified. If classified as an operating lease, the seller-lessee would remove the financial liability and asset from its books and recognize a gain of $351,699 ($911,699 financial liability – $560,000 net carrying amount). The date of transfer of control is considered the lease commencement date. However, if the seller-lessee classified the lease as a finance lease, no sale has occurred and the transaction would continue to be accounted for as a failed sale and leaseback. See LG 6.3.4 for information on the impact of lease classification on qualification as a sale.

6.5.1.3 Accounting by the seller-lessee when the leaseback is for a portion of the asset

When a failed sale and leaseback transaction involves a seller-lessee that leases back only a portion of the asset, there are additional accounting considerations. Since the asset is not derecognized by the seller-lessee, there may be leases associated with other portions of the asset. These leases must be accounted for by the seller-lessee, and rental income should be imputed for the other leases, offset by additional imputed debt service.
Example LG 6-17 illustrates how a seller-lessee should account for a leaseback of a portion of an underlying asset when there are other leases in place.
EXAMPLE LG 6-17
Seller-lessee sells an asset and leases back a portion of the asset
A seller-lessee sells a shopping center in which it occupies the anchor store to a buyer-lessor and leases back only its store location. Consider the following facts about this transaction:
  • The shopping center is one legal asset
  • The shopping center is sold at fair value and the leaseback rentals reflect market rental rates
  • The seller-lessee has a repurchase option
  • There are no alternative assets that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace
How should the seller-lessee account for the sale and leaseback of the building?
Analysis
Because the seller-lessee has a repurchase option and there are no alternative assets that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace, the transaction would not qualify for sale accounting. It should be accounted for as a financing transaction. The net carrying amount of the asset would remain on the seller-lessee’s books and the seller-lessee would continue to record annual depreciation expense.
The cash proceeds received from the buyer-lessor would be recorded as a financial liability. The rental payments made to the buyer-lessor for use of the anchor store would be re-characterized as debt service on the financing. In addition, since the seller-lessee does not have use of the other stores (which are retained on its balance sheet), it should impute rental income for the lease of the stores offset by additional imputed debt service.
The transaction should not be accounted for as a partial sale and partial financing.

It may be difficult to apply the imputed revenue model, previously described, when the asset involved in the sale and leaseback transaction is not fully utilized at the transaction date. When applying the imputed revenue model, a seller-lessee should consider the amount of asset usage and time necessary to lease vacancies. If the buyer-lessor is expected to lease the asset to third parties, we believe it is acceptable for the seller-lessee to impute rental income based on rents due from actual tenants; however, it may be difficult for the seller-lessee to apply this approach as it is no longer the legal owner of the asset and may not have access to the necessary information. Accordingly, we also believe it is acceptable for the seller-lessee to impute estimated market rental income as if the buyer-lessor is leasing all of the other stores from the seller-lessee (and subletting the stores to other tenants). However, the specific facts and circumstances, including the expected time necessary to lease the vacant space, should be considered when applying this alternative approach. For example, if 20% of the stores in the strip shopping center were vacant at the time of the sale and leaseback transaction and it typically requires several months to lease vacant space, it would be inappropriate to assume that the buyer-lessor was immediately leasing 100% of such vacant space from the seller-lessee at a market rental rate.

6.5.2 Accounting for a failed sale and leaseback by a buyer-lessor

To account for a failed sale and leaseback transaction as a financing arrangement, the buyer-lessor records the initial payment to the seller-lessee as a financial asset (i.e., a loan receivable).
As the seller-lessee makes rental payments, the buyer-lessor should allocate the payments between interest income and principal repayments on the financial asset.
To determine the amount allocated to interest income, the buyer-lessor should utilize an interest rate based on the guidance in ASC 835, Interest, specifically, ASC 835-30-25-12 through ASC 835-30-25-13. Accordingly, the buyer-lessor’s interest rate may not be the same as the seller-lessee’s rate, particularly when the seller-lessee has adjusted its interest rate to avoid negative amortization or a built-in-loss. Variable payments should be accounted for in accordance with ASC 310. See LI 6.5.1.2 for information on accounting for variable rate loans.

6.5.2.1 Accounting by the buyer-lessor when it obtains control of the asset

A buyer-lessor may obtain control of the asset at any time, including at the end of the leaseback period. If a sale is ultimately recognized in a failed sale and leaseback transaction, the remaining balance of the financial asset represents the cost of the underlying asset that the buyer-lessor purchases.
Example LG 6-18 and Example LG 6-19 illustrate the accounting for a failed sale and leaseback by the buyer-lessor, including the accounting by the buyer-lessor when control is obtained.
EXAMPLE LG 6-18
Failed sale and leaseback – buyer-lessor obtains control of the underlying asset at the end of the leaseback term
A seller-lessee sells a building for $950,000 cash and agrees to lease the building back for five years. Consider the following facts about this transaction:
  • The net carrying amount of the building as of the date of sale is $800,000
  • The annual leaseback payment is $100,000
  • Annual depreciation expense is $80,000
  • The seller-lessee does not guarantee the residual value of the asset at the end of the leaseback term
  • The seller-lessee has a repurchase option that allows it to buy the building at the then-prevailing fair market value at any time during the lease term
  • The buyer-lessor’s interest rate implicit in the leaseback is 9%
How should the buyer-lessor account for the sale and leaseback of the building?
Analysis
Because the seller-lessee has a repurchase option and there are no alternative buildings that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace, the buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the underlying asset prior to the end of the leaseback term. The transaction would not qualify for sale accounting and should be accounted for as a lending transaction by the buyer-lessor. The asset would not be recorded by the buyer-lessor and the original purchase price of $950,000 would be recorded as a financial asset.
The annual leaseback payments from the seller-lessee of $100,000 would be allocated between interest income and principal repayments on the financial asset. Because the cash flows supporting the financial asset are the same as the cash flows underlying the leaseback, applying the guidance to determine the appropriate interest rate in ASC 835 results in a rate similar to the rate implicit in the leaseback, or 9%. In year 1, for example, the buyer-lessor would record interest income of $85,500 (calculated by multiplying the beginning balance of the financial asset, $950,000 by 9%). The principal repayment is calculated as the difference between the annual leaseback payment and the allocation of interest income ($100,000 payment – interest income of $85,500 = $14,500).
At the end of the fifth year, the leaseback and repurchase option expire and the buyer-lessor would obtain control of the asset. At that time, the buyer-lessor would recognize the purchase of the asset and remove the financial asset from its books.
Application of the financing method is illustrated below:
Period
Lease payment
Financial asset
Principal repayment
Interest income
Inception
$–
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
100,000
935,500
14,500
85,500
Year 2
100,000
919,695
15,805
84,195
Year 3
100,000
902,468
17,227
82,773
Year 4
100,000
883,690
18,778
81,222
Year 5
100,000
863,222
20,468
79,532
At the end of the five-year leaseback term, the buyer-lessor would record its purchase of the asset at a purchase price of $863,222, the remaining balance of the financial asset at that time.
EXAMPLE LG 6-19
Buyer-lessor obtains control of the underlying asset prior to the end of the leaseback term
A seller-lessee sells a building for $950,000 cash and agrees to lease the building back for five years. Consider the following facts about this transaction:
  • The net carrying amount of the building as of the date of sale is $800,000
  • The annual leaseback payment is $100,000
  • Annual depreciation expense is $80,000
  • The seller-lessee does not guarantee the residual value of the asset at the end of the leaseback term
  • The seller-lessee has a repurchase option that allows it to buy the building at the then-prevailing fair market value at any time during the lease term
  • The buyer-lessor’s interest rate implicit in the leaseback is 9%
Assume the lease contract is modified at the end of the third year to remove the seller-lessee’s repurchase option. As a result, the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset at the end of the third year.
How should the buyer-lessor account for the sale and leaseback of the building?
Analysis
Because the seller-lessee has a repurchase option and there are no alternative buildings that are substantially the same and readily available in the marketplace, the buyer-lessor does not obtain control of the building at the transaction effective date. The transaction would not qualify for sale accounting and should be accounted for as a financing at the transaction effective date.
At the end of the third year, due to the modification, the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset. At that time, the buyer-lessor would recognize the purchase of the asset and remove the financial asset from its books.
Application of the financing method for this scenario is illustrated below:
Period
Lease payment
Financial asset
Principal repayment
Interest income
Inception
$–
$950,000
$–
$–
Year 1
100,000
935,500
14,500
85,500
Year 2
100,000
919,695
15,805
84,195
Year 3
100,000
902,468
17,227
82,773
At the end of the third year, the buyer-lessor would record its purchase of the asset at a purchase price of $902,468, the remaining balance of the financial asset at that time. Any unamortized debt origination costs are inherently in the purchase price of the asset (i.e., the initial carrying amount of the property, plant, and equipment).
The buyer-lessor would classify the lease as an operating lease when control transfers (i.e., the lease commencement date).
If the lease were classified as a direct finance lease, the buyer-lessor would record the net investment in the lease at the carrying amount of the financial asset (i.e., $902,468). The buyer-lessor would subsequently recognize income based on the rate that produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investment in the lease. See LG 4.3.2 for information on the accounting for direct finance leases.

PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the US member firm or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.

Expand Expand
Resize
Tools
Rcl
Add to favorites
Please ensure
that you select
Print Background (colors and images) when printing.
CONTINUE
PwC image modal

This content is copyright protected. It is for your own use only - do not redistribute. These materials were downloaded from PwC's Viewpoint (viewpoint.pwc.com) under license.

Warning 2

✕

Welcome to Viewpoint, the new platform that replaces Inform. Once you have viewed this piece of content, to ensure you can access the content most relevant to you, please confirm your territory.

Viewpoint allows you to save up to 25 favorites.

Consider removing one of your current favorites in order to to add a new one.

Go to favorites

Are you sure you would like to remove this page from your list?

Yes
You are already signed in on another browser or device.
Click Continue if you want to automatically close other logged in sessions and continue. If you want to manually check for other active logged in sessions first, please select Cancel to go back to the previous page.
Need some help? Contact us
signin option menu option suggested option contentmouse option displaycontent option contentpage option relatedlink option prevandafter option trending option searchicon option search option feedback option end slide
✕

Hello and welcome to Viewpoint

Your go-to resource for timely and relevant accounting, auditing, reporting and business insights. Follow along as we demonstrate how to use the site

Before we start.

Choose your preferred language below.