Key Takeaways
- GASB approved an Exposure Draft that would expand how governments evaluate and document infrastructure depreciation, including when major elements should be accounted for separately.
- Deliberations continued on a disclosure model centered on a government’s capacity to meet financial obligations, with a clearer distinction between significant financial strain and insolvency.
- The Board continued shaping a comprehensive revenue and expense recognition framework intended to apply consistently across transaction types.
At its March meeting, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) advanced several projects: infrastructure assets, going concern uncertainties/severe financial stress (GCU/SFS), revenue and expense recognition (RER), and GAAP structure. Across these topics, the Board consistently emphasized decision-useful reporting supported by clear processes, strong documentation, and consistent application.
Board decisions are tentative until issued in final form.
Infrastructure Assets
GASB approved issuance of an Exposure Draft (ED), moving the project to public comment. The proposal would require governments to assess whether major infrastructure elements should be accounted for separately when they are expected to be consumed over different periods, affecting depreciation and related disclosures.
In discussing componentization, the Board focused on whether calling a qualifying part a “separate infrastructure asset” was clear enough for practice, especially to avoid confusion about how far disaggregation should go. The Board also clarified that the modified approach would not require a formal software system, but it would require ongoing processes such as maintaining current inventories and documentation to continue using that approach.
The Board also refined transition language so the componentization guidance would apply prospectively to assets or capitalized improvements placed in service after the beginning of the reporting period, helping avoid the impression that governments must revisit all existing infrastructure. The Board acknowledged added transition and ongoing effort, but the objective is to better align reported depreciation with infrastructure condition and consumption over time and to anchor transparency in repeatable, well-documented judgment.
Going Concern Uncertainties and Severe Financial Stress
GASB continued deliberations on a disclosure model for GCU/SFS. Discussion continued to center the trigger on a government’s ability to meet financial obligations as they come due, while distinguishing significant financial strain from insolvency. The Board tentatively favored an obligations approach over ratio-based or service-impact models because it viewed that approach as more objective and more workable across different types of governments. It also signaled that disclosures could apply not only to insolvent governments and those already in very poor financial condition, but also to governments expected to become insolvent within a defined future period.
Revenue and Expense Recognition
In RER deliberations, the Board addressed contingent consideration, collectability, and refunds. It indicated certain variable consideration would be included in the arrangement amount when tied to a future event considered likely to occur (or not occur) and chose not to add a separate constraint mechanism. The discussion framed contingent consideration as a measurement issue rather than a recognition issue, meaning the uncertainty affects the amount of an existing receivable or payable instead of creating a new one only when the future event occurs. For collectability and refunds, the Board favored a “probable” threshold.
The Board also decided not to adopt a CECL-like credit loss framework (i.e., current expected credit losses model, which requires entities to estimate expected losses up front using available information and forecasts). Instead, the Board retained a governmental model that recognizes revenue net of expected uncollectible amounts for Category A and B activities, with those amounts reflected through an allowance reducing the reported receivable balance. This model would effectively supersede the current collectability guidance in GASB 34 footnote 41 (i.e., eliminating inconsistent gross-versus-net presentation language and aligning the literature around net presentation through an allowance). GASB also indicated that governments would use professional judgment in grouping transactions for collectability and that the project would not define “customer credit risk” or extend broader conforming amendments beyond exchange and nonexchange revenue guidance.
GAAP Structure
On GAAP structure, the Board discussed how to organize standards and integrate future guidance to make governmental GAAP more consistent and easier to navigate — an issue that becomes more important as large initiatives like RER interact with existing literature. Staff indicated that codification remains the only realistic single-source approach under consideration at this stage, while the Discussion Memorandum (DM) is expected to invite stakeholders to propose alternatives and comment on possible next steps.
What Governments Should Watch
Now that the ED is issued, governments should monitor near-term infrastructure changes, including expectations for supportable depreciation when significant elements are consumed over different periods. The evolving GCU/SFS model could require more structured, supportable evaluations of financial capacity in the longer term, potentially including a forward-looking component. Across projects, the Board’s direction favors repeatable processes and clear documentation to support reporting and auditability.
Given the scope of RER, preparers may want to map how major revenue and expense streams are recognized today, where policies differ, and where data and controls may need strengthening. Commenting on Exposure Drafts remains an important way to influence practicability and cost-benefit tradeoffs in final standards.
These project pathways collectively point to more comparable reporting and a higher bar for supportable, well-documented judgments.
Our government professionals are well-versed in GASB standards and can help you assess the practical implications of these evolving requirements.
Challenges in the government sector are diverse and unique — we can help.
Who We Are
Eide Bailly is a CPA firm bringing practical expertise in tax, audit, and advisory to help you perform, protect, and prosper with confidence.
