Posted on

Accounting for Overheads Costs

Accurate overhead allocations are essential to understanding financial performance and making informed pricing decisions. Here’s guidance on how to estimate overhead rates to allocate these indirect costs to your products and how to adjust for variances that may occur.

What’s included in overhead?

Overhead costs are a part of every business. These accounts frequently serve as catch-alls for any expense that can’t be directly allocated to production, including:

  • Equipment maintenance and depreciation,
  • Factory and warehouse rent,
  • Building maintenance,
  • Administrative and executive salaries,
  • Taxes,
  • Insurance, and
  • Utilities.

Generally, such indirect costs of production are fixed, meaning they won’t change appreciably whether production increases or diminishes.

How are overhead rates calculated?

The challenge comes in deciding how to allocate these costs to products using an overhead rate. The rate is typically determined by dividing estimated overhead expenses by estimated totals in the allocation base (for example, direct labor hours) for a future period of time. Then you multiply the rate by the actual number of direct labor hours for each product (or batch of products) to establish the amount of overhead that should be applied.

In some organizations, the rate is applied companywide, across all products. This is particularly appropriate for organizations that make single, standard products — such as bricks — over long periods of time. If your product mix is more complex and customized, you may use multiple overhead rates to allocate costs more accurately. If one department is machine-intensive and another is labor-intensive, for example, multiple rates may be appropriate.

How do you handle variances from actual costs?

There’s one problem with accounting for overhead costs: Variances are almost certain. There are likely to be more variances if you use a simple companywide overhead rate, but even the most carefully thought-out multiple rates won’t always be 100% accurate.

The result? Large accounts that many managers don’t understand and that require constant adjustment. This situation creates opportunities for errors — and for dishonest people to commit fraud. Fortunately, you can reduce the chance of overhead anomalies with strong internal control procedures, such as:

  • Conducting independent reviews of all adjustments to overhead and inventory accounts,
  • Studying significant overhead adjustments over different periods of time to spot anomalies,
  • Discussing complaints about high product costs with nonaccounting managers, and
  • Evaluating your existing overhead allocation and making adjustments as necessary.

Allocating costs more accurately won’t guarantee that you make a profit. To do that, you have to make prudent pricing decisions — based on the production costs and market conditions — and then sell what you produce.

Need help?

Cost accounting can be complex, and indirect overhead costs can be difficult to trace. We can help you understand how to minimize the guesswork in accounting for overhead and identify when it’s time to adjust your allocation rates. Our accounting pros can also suggest ways to monitor cost allocations to prevent errors and mismanagement.

© 2018

Posted on

Auditing Royalty Agreements

Companies often grant licenses to others allowing them to use intellectual property — such as a patent or proprietary computer code — in exchange for royalties. Licensors can hire an external audit firm to ensure the licensee pays the correct royalty rate and amount. Here’s how the audit process works.

The agreement

The parties’ attorneys usually create a royalty agreement that governs the use of the intellectual property. This legal contract between the licensor and licensee details the terms of the arrangement. It spells out how the licensee may use the asset, the duration of the license and how much the licensee agrees to pay the licensor in royalties for the right to use the asset.

Unfortunately, royalty payments sometimes fall short of the agreed-upon amount. This may be due to a clerical error, confusion regarding the agreement’s terms — or even fraud. To detect and deter shortfalls, most contracts include a “right-to-audit” clause, meaning that the licensor retains the legal right to hire an outside firm to audit the licensee’s payments to confirm compliance with the terms detailed in the agreement.

The auditor’s role

When auditing royalty agreements, CPAs typically perform the following six steps:

1. Review the agreement to understand its scope, including the asset under license, the duration of the contract, prohibited uses and the royalty rate.

2. Analyze sales data used to derive royalty payments to date. Depending on the type of asset under license, the audit team may request production and inventory records.

3. Perform a detailed walk-through of the process the licensee follows to identify, track and report sales subject to a royalty payment.

4. Conduct random sampling of sales data to ensure the licensee applies the correct rate to generate the royalty payment.

5. Review sales and royalty payment trends to confirm that the licensee’s sales align with the royalty payments.

6. Gather individual invoices from key customers to locate and confirm that sales transactions subject to royalties actually generated a royalty payment.

Usually, the licensor assumes the cost of the royalty audit. However, some agreements include a clause that requires the licensee to assume responsibility for the cost of the audit if the audit uncovers underpayment of royalties by a certain margin.

Keep licensees on their toes

Most licensing arrangements function without a hitch. But a minor error or oversight could result in a significant shortfall in royalty payments. Periodic royalty audits can prevent small, but honest, mistakes from spiraling out of control — and help reduce the temptation for dishonest licensees to commit fraud. Contact us to discuss the benefits of auditing your royalty agreements.

© 2018

Posted on

Could a Cost Segregation Study Help You Accelerate Depreciation Deductions?

Businesses that acquire, construct or substantially improve a building — or did so in previous years — should consider a cost segregation study. It may allow you to accelerate depreciation deductions, thus reducing taxes and boosting cash flow. And the potential benefits are now even greater due to enhancements to certain depreciation-related breaks under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

Real property vs. tangible personal property

IRS rules generally allow you to depreciate commercial buildings over 39 years (27½ years for residential properties). Most times, you’ll depreciate a building’s structural components — such as walls, windows, HVAC systems, elevators, plumbing and wiring — along with the building. Personal property — such as equipment, machinery, furniture and fixtures — is eligible for accelerated depreciation, usually over five or seven years. And land improvements — fences, outdoor lighting and parking lots, for example — are depreciable over 15 years.

Too often, businesses allocate all or most of a building’s acquisition or construction costs to real property, overlooking opportunities to allocate costs to shorter-lived personal property or land improvements. In some cases — computers or furniture, for instance — the distinction between real and personal property is obvious. But often the line between the two is less clear. Items that appear to be part of a building may in fact be personal property, like removable wall and floor coverings, removable partitions, awnings and canopies, window treatments, signs and decorative lighting.

In addition, certain items that otherwise would be treated as real property may qualify as personal property if they serve more of a business function than a structural purpose. This includes reinforced flooring to support heavy manufacturing equipment, electrical or plumbing installations required to operate specialized equipment, or dedicated cooling systems for data processing rooms.

A cost segregation study combines accounting and engineering techniques to identify building costs that are properly allocable to tangible personal property rather than real property. Although the relative costs and benefits of a cost segregation study depend on your particular facts and circumstances, it can be a valuable investment.

Depreciation break enhancements

Last year’s TCJA enhances certain depreciation-related tax breaks, which may also enhance the benefits of a cost segregation study. Among other things, the act permanently increased limits on Section 179 expensing. Sec. 179 allows you to immediately deduct the entire cost of qualifying equipment or other fixed assets up to specified thresholds.

The TCJA also expanded 15-year-property treatment to apply to qualified improvement property. Previously this break was limited to qualified leasehold-improvement, retail-improvement and restaurant property. And it temporarily increased first-year bonus depreciation to 100% (from 50%).

Assess the potential savings

Cost segregation studies may yield substantial benefits, but they’re not right for every business. To find out whether a study would be worthwhile for yours, contact us for help assessing the potential tax savings.

© 2018

Posted on

Spotlight on Auditor Independence and Hosting Arrangements

With Independence Day coming up, it’s a good time to check up on auditor independence issues. This is especially important in 2018. Why? New rules go into effect this fall that may warrant changes to the services provided by your audit firm. If you discover potential issues now, there’s still plenty of time to take corrective action before next year’s audit begins.

What’s independence?

Independence is one of the most important requirements for audit firms. It’s why investors and lenders trust CPAs to provide unbiased opinions about the presentation of a company’s financial results. The AICPA and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have rules regarding auditor independence. Even the U.S. Department of Labor has issued independence guidance for auditors of employee benefit plans.

The AICPA specifically goes to great lengths to explain how auditing firms can maintain their independence from the companies they audit. In short, auditors can’t provide any services for an audit client that would normally fall to management to complete. Auditors also can’t engage in any relationships with their clients that would compromise their objectivity, require them to audit their own work, or result in self-dealing, a conflict of interest, or advocacy.

Independence is a matter of professional judgment, but it’s something that accountants take seriously. A firm that violates the independence rules calls into question the accuracy and integrity of its client’s financial statement.

What’s changing?

Today, some businesses have chosen to host their company’s data with their audit firm. In response, the AICPA’s Professional Ethics Executive Committee announced a change to the profession’s independence rules. As of September 1, 2018, to maintain independence, auditors can’t perform any of the following services for their audit clients:

  • Serve as the sole host of a client’s financial or nonfinancial records.
  • Function as the primary custodian of a client’s data, meaning that a company must access the data in the CPA’s possession to possess a complete set of records.
  • Provide business continuity and disaster recovery support services.

Not all custody or control of a client’s records results in hosting services, however. The new rule narrowly interprets hosting services to mean the audit firm has accepted responsibility for maintaining internal control over data an audit client uses to run the business. Accepting responsibility to perform a management function explicitly compromises auditor independence.

Finding a host with the most

Is your audit firm responsible for managing your company’s data? If so, it may be time for a change. Data migration isn’t necessarily time consuming, but it may take time to find a new hosting company with the right balance of security and services to meet your data storage and access needs. Contact us to evaluate your hosting arrangement and, if necessary, identify an alternate provider to stay in compliance with the AICPA independence rules.

© 2018

Posted on

Don’t Let Collaborative Arrangements Cause Financial Reporting Headaches

Businesses often enter into so-called “collaborative arrangements” when they partner with another entity on a major project. Unfortunately, the current guidance for these types of arrangements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) is somewhat vague.

Here are some questions that may arise as participants report shared costs and revenue on their income statements, along with details about a recent proposal that would clarify how to report collaborative arrangements.

What is a collaborative arrangement?

Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 808, Collaborative Arrangements, provides guidance for income statement presentation, classification and disclosures related to collaborative arrangements. It lists three requirements for collaborative arrangements:

1. They must involve at least two parties (or participants).
2. The parties involved must all be active participants in the activity.
3. All participants must be exposed to significant risks and rewards dependent on the commercial success of the activity.

Collaborative arrangements are a particularly common type of joint venture for film production and life science companies. For example, two pharmaceutical companies might agree to share research and development expenses to produce a new drug. Then, if the drug succeeds, the companies also would share the revenue from sales of the drug.

What qualifies as revenue?

Today’s guidance on collaborative agreements has led to inconsistent accounting practices. Why? Topic 808 doesn’t include guidance for determining what the appropriate unit of accounting is or when recognition criteria are met. Rather, it says to look to other areas of GAAP to account for a transaction. If there’s no formal guidance available, businesses typically apply an accounting policy or another accounting method by analogy. As a result, companies may label items as “revenue” when they belong elsewhere on the income statement.

To further complicate matters, the landmark revenue recognition standard goes into effect in 2018 for public companies and in 2019 for private ones. Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), limits application of the revenue standard to arrangements that involve a customer as one of the parties to a contract.

In April, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed an update to clarify the scope of its standards for revenue and collaborative arrangements. If finalized, the proposal will help partners in a collaborative arrangement determine when a transaction should be treated as revenue. Public comments on the proposed changes are due in June.

Got more questions?

We’re atop the latest developments on reporting collaborative arrangements. Contact us with questions about the interaction of the standards for collaborative arrangements and revenue recognition. We can help you concurrently implement the latest rules and minimize the risk of restatement.

© 2018