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. Rather than prescribing a single system, the Board emphasized practical processes to keep asset records current and support compliance.
Board edits reinforced ongoing maintenance, including updated inventories and support for key assumptions such as service lives and depreciation inputs. While acknowledging the added transition and ongoing effort, the Board reiterated that the objective is to better align reported depreciation with how infrastructure is actually consumed over time. The model places a higher premium on repeatable, well‑documented judgment to support transparency and auditability.
Going Concern Uncertainties and Severe Financial Stress
GASB continued deliberations on a disclosure model for GCU/SFS. Discussion centered on a government’s ability to meet financial obligations as they come due, while distinguishing significant financial strain from insolvency.
The Board also explored whether the evaluation should consider expected future capacity in addition to current conditions and sought a decision-useful approach without overly rigid thresholds. If requirements are issued, governments may need identify the data, controls, and governance needed to support a consistent evaluation approach if requirements are issued.
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. For collectability and refunds, the Board favored a “probable” threshold.
The Board also decided not to adopt a CECL-like credit loss framework, instead retaining a governmental model that recognizes revenue net of expected uncollectible amounts for Category A and B activities. Uncollectible amounts would be reflected through an allowance that reduces receivables (rather than changing initial receivable measurement).
The Board indicated that GASB Statement No. 34 collectability guidance would be replaced; grouping transactions for collectability would rely on professional judgment; and the project would not define “customer credit risk” or expand beyond exchange/nonexchange revenue refinements.
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.
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.
