Accounting
FASB Proposes Changes to Reporting of Pensions and Other Retirement Plans
Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), defined benefit pension cost and postretirement benefit cost (net benefit cost) comprise several components that reflect different aspects of an employer’s financial arrangements, as well as the ...
Jan. 27, 2016
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued two proposed Accounting Standards Updates (ASUs) intended to improve financial reporting by employers related to defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans.
The proposed ASU, Compensation—Retirement Benefits—Defined Benefit Plans—General (Subtopic 715-20): Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Defined Benefit Plans, is part of the FASB’s broader disclosure framework project aimed at improving the effectiveness of disclosures in the notes to financial statements by focusing on the information that is most relevant to financial statement users.
As part of that project, the FASB decided to re-examine existing disclosure requirements in certain areas within the context of the proposed disclosure framework. Pensions was one of four areas—including income taxes, inventory, and fair value—to be re-examined.
The proposed ASU, Compensation—Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost, seeks to improve guidance related to the presentation of defined benefit costs in the income statement.
Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), defined benefit pension cost and postretirement benefit cost (net benefit cost) comprise several components that reflect different aspects of an employer’s financial arrangements, as well as the cost of benefits provided to employees. Those components are aggregated for reporting in the financial statements.
Many stakeholders have observed that the current presentation of defined benefit cost on a net basis combines elements that are distinctly different in their predictive value. This makes it more costly for investors and other users to analyze and understand that information, resulting in financial statements that are more opaque and less useful than they could be.
The proposed ASU would address these issues by requiring a reporting organization to separate the service cost component from the other components of net benefit cost for presentation purposes. It also would provide explicit guidance on how to present the service cost component and other components of net benefit cost in the income statement. The proposed ASU would allow only the service cost component of net benefit cost to be eligible for capitalization.
Stakeholders are asked to provide comment on the proposed ASUs by April 25, 2016.
The proposed ASUs—and a high-level FASB in Focus overview of both—are available at www.fasb.org.