Key Takeaways
- GASB advanced allocation guidance for binding arrangements, Category A performance obligations, Category B recognition units of account, and non-monetary consideration.
- GASB tentatively favored an assessment as of the date financial statements are available to be issued, plus a 12-month forward-looking insolvency assessment.
- GASB declined to add cybersecurity information to the current agenda, added research on pensions/OPEB deferrals and digital assets, and approved the technical plan for the second third of 2026.
At its May 5–7, 2026, meetings, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) discussed revenue and expense recognition, going concern uncertainties (GCU), and severe financial stress (SFS), as well as the Board’s technical plan. The Board also held a liaison meeting with the AICPA’s State and Local Government Expert Panel.
All Board decisions remain tentative until a final pronouncement is issued.
Revenue and Expense Recognition (RER)
The Board tentatively decided that governments should allocate consideration from the total binding arrangement amount to each transaction using observable amounts, as long as those amounts do not appear unreasonable based on the arrangement’s terms and professional judgment. If observable amounts are not specified or appear unreasonable, governments would use an estimation method that maximizes observable information.
Board members were concerned that the “does not appear to be unreasonable” language could be misread as a fair-value or equal-value test, even though the project has moved away from commensurate value as the basis for distinguishing transactions. The discussion highlighted the need to clearly connect categorization, management intent, and allocation, particularly when a single binding arrangement includes both Category A and Category B transactions.
For Category A transactions with multiple performance obligations, the Board tentatively applied a similar framework: use observable amounts when they do not appear unreasonable; otherwise, use an estimation method that maximizes observable information. The Board also tentatively decided that the allocation methodology should be set at the inception of the binding arrangement and not reassessed each reporting period.
The Board also refined recognition units of account for Category B transactions with qualifying requirements. The recognition unit would be each dollar of qualifying costs incurred, each incremental other qualifying requirement, or the transaction when the qualifying requirement consists of characteristics of a non-governmental resource recipient. For arrangements with both qualifying costs and other qualifying requirements, the recognition unit would be the qualifying cost or other qualifying requirement satisfied last. Future drafting will need to distinguish true recognition-delaying milestones from ongoing compliance provisions, such as maintenance-of-effort requirements.
Non-monetary consideration also produced a significant debate. The Board tentatively decided that a government providing non-monetary consideration in a Category A expense transaction should measure that consideration at carrying amount. They also decided that potential note disclosures should be assessed for essentiality when the difference between carrying amount and fair value is significant. The underlying tension is practical and conceptual: carrying amount avoids a broad capital asset remeasurement model, but some Board members questioned whether it fully reflects what a government gives up in an exchange-like transaction.
Going Concern Uncertainties and Severe Financial Stress
The Board’s redeliberation of severe financial stress (SFS) focused first on timing. GASB tentatively decided that governments should assess whether they are insolvent or in very poor financial condition as of the date the financial statements are available to be issued. The Board also tentatively decided not to require separate assessments as of the financial statement date or during the financial reporting period.
This was a key decision. Board members weighed users’ interest in more current information against preparer and auditor concerns that multiple assessment dates could be interpreted as requiring multiple full, audit-ready assessments. The result appears to favor one current-condition assessment tied to issuance rather than a year-end assessment plus a second full assessment before issuance.
The Board also refined the description of “very poor financial condition.” It was tentatively decided that the need to take significant actions to avoid insolvency should remain an example indicator, not an automatic trigger. The Board also decided governments that regularly operate close to insolvency should not always be considered in a very poor financial condition. The tentative description is “a government experiencing financial difficulties such that it is nearly insolvent.”
For the forward-looking component, the Board tentatively decided governments should assess whether insolvency is probable within 12 months of the date the financial statements are available to be issued. Unimplemented plans would not be considered in that likelihood assessment, and a government would not perform a secondary assessment that considers those plans if the threshold is met without them.
GASB Technical Plan
The most significant technical plan discussion involved whether GASB should add a project on cybersecurity information. The Board considered a project prospectus but decided not to add the project to its technical agenda. The Board struggled to identify disclosures that would be decision-useful without creating cybersecurity disclosure conflicts, legal barriers, boilerplate reporting, or information that could increase risk.
The Board also questioned whether cybersecurity information had a sufficient connection to financial reporting. Cybersecurity incidents can have financial effects, but existing requirements may already address material impacts through contingencies, liabilities, subsequent events, or other guidance. A cybersecurity-specific project risked either producing high-level disclosures with limited value or requiring details that governments may be unable or unwilling to provide safely.
Beyond cybersecurity, the Board approved pre-agenda research on Digital Assets and on Pensions and OPEB—Effects of Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources on Expense. They also received updates on Pension and OPEB Disclosures—Concepts Statement 7 and GAAP Utilization, declined an agenda request to reexamine certain investment reporting requirements, and approved the technical plan for the second third of 2026.
AICPA Liaison Meeting
The Board and staff also met with members of the AICPA’s State and Local Government Expert Panel to discuss issues of mutual interest. No deliberations were conducted, and no decisions were made.
What Governments Should Watch
Governments should monitor the RER project, as the May discussions point to areas that may require judgment and documentation: identifying transactions and performance obligations, supporting observable amounts, selecting estimation methods, determining Category B recognition units of account, and evaluating noncash consideration when carrying amount and fair value differ significantly.
For SFS, governments may need processes that extend beyond the year-end close. Finance teams should be prepared to identify relevant post-year-end developments, distinguish implemented actions from plans, document judgments about very poor financial condition, and support whether insolvency is probable within the 12-month look-forward period.
The technical plan discussion also sends a practical message. Cybersecurity remains important, but GASB’s decision suggests financial statement standard-setting may not be the best vehicle for broad cybersecurity reporting. Meanwhile, research on pensions/OPEB deferrals and digital assets signals areas that may become more prominent in future governmental financial reporting discussions.
Our government professionals are well-versed in GASB standards and can help you assess the practical implications of these evolving requirements.
Who We Are
Eide Bailly is a nationally ranked accounting and advisory firm bringing financial, operational, and technical solutions to middle market and high-growth organizations.
