Key Takeaways
- GASB expanded the Revenue and Expense Recognition project’s scope to include modified accrual revenue recognition and measurement guidance, advanced tentative decisions on estimating variable consideration, and moved toward a final Implementation Guide with subsidy clarifications for higher education donations, research grants, taxes, and passenger facility charges.
- GASB tentatively separated insolvency-risk disclosures from severe financial-stress disclosures and decided all governments should perform a forward-looking insolvency assessment.
- GASB added pre-agenda research on financial reporting entity guidance, signaling renewed attention to component unit determinations, note disclosures, and related reporting judgments.
At its June 23 - 24, 2026, meetings, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) focused on several projects that could affect how state and local governments recognize revenues, evaluate subsidies, disclose financial stress, and apply reporting entity guidance. The Board’s decisions remain tentative until a final pronouncement is issued, but the direction of travel is important for preparers, auditors, and finance officials to monitor now.
Revenue and Expense Recognition
The most important development in the Revenue and Expense Recognition (RER) project in June was the Board’s tentative decision to bring modified accrual revenue recognition and measurement guidance into the project’s scope. That matters because governmental fund revenue recognition has long depended on the “measurable and available” framework, with availability-period guidance spread across multiple sources. GASB’s discussion suggests the Board is looking for a more aligned starting point for revenue analysis while preserving the availability concept as a governmental fund feature.
In practice, this could be significant for grants, taxes, charges, and other inflows reported in governmental funds. The Board did not decide how availability periods should ultimately be defined, whether governments should retain policy elections, or whether a single availability period should be established. However, the discussion signals that governments may eventually need clearer documentation of when a receivable arises, how it is measured, and how availability affects recognition in governmental funds.
The Board also refined tentative guidance for estimating variable consideration. Probability-weighted amounts and most likely amounts would be identified as acceptable examples, but governments would not be limited to those two methods if another method better reflects the qualitative characteristics of financial reporting. That balance is important: it gives governments recognizable anchors for estimation while preserving flexibility for unusual or complex arrangements.
GASB also tentatively supported allowing a portfolio approach when estimating variable consideration. For example, a government would not necessarily have to estimate every similar refund, rebate, credit, or contingency one arrangement at a time if a portfolio of similar transactions provides a reasonable basis for the estimate. The key will be judgment: governments will need to define portfolios based on relevant economic characteristics and apply selected methods consistently across similar types of variables.
The Board further tentatively decided that a government should select an estimation method when the variable consideration is first included in the estimate of the total binding arrangement amount, not necessarily at inception in every case. Governments would also be expected to maximize observable information and consider reasonably available information, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable assumptions.
Going Concern Uncertainties and Severe Financial Stress
The Board continued to work through how Severe Financial Stress (SFS) disclosures should interact with a 12-month forward-looking insolvency assessment. The key June decision was that a government that is likely to be insolvent within 12 months from the date the financial statements are available for issuance should make insolvency-risk disclosures separately from SFS disclosures.
That distinction is important. SFS is being developed around a present condition — whether a government is insolvent or nearly insolvent. The 12-month assessment, by contrast, is risk-oriented. GASB’s discussion suggests users may need different information depending on whether a government is already in severe financial stress or instead faces a probable near-term risk of insolvency.
The Board also tentatively decided that the forward-looking assessment should not be used to guide the identification of whether a government is nearly insolvent. In other words, the conclusion that a government is probable of becoming insolvent within 12 months would not automatically serve as an indicator of a current SFS condition. Facts discovered during the forward-looking analysis may still inform the current-condition assessment, but the two evaluations are intended to remain conceptually distinct.
GASB also tentatively decided that all governments should be required to perform the forward-looking assessment. The Board has not yet finalized the disclosure content, and future deliberations will need to evaluate whether the disclosures comply with Concepts Statement 7, particularly the boundary between describing a present risk or uncertainty and predicting the future financial position.
Implementation Guidance Update — Subsidies
The Board reviewed feedback on the proposed Implementation Guide for Financial Reporting Model Improvements — Subsidies and did not object to moving toward a pre-ballot draft. One notable outcome was the decision not to carry forward the proposed question on Medicaid supplemental payments. The Board appeared concerned that the issue depends heavily on how the arrangement is viewed and may be better addressed through the broader RER project rather than through a narrow implementation question.
For higher education institutions, the Board supported clarifications regarding donations received by institutions for scholarships. The emerging distinction is whether the resources belong to the university or to the student. If the resources are university resources used to reduce what students pay, the subsidy analysis may apply even if published tuition rates do not change.
The Board also discussed research grants, taxes imposed by business-type activities, and passenger facility charges. The common theme is that labels alone will not drive the presentation answer. Governments will need to evaluate who provides the resources, whether goods or services are provided to that resource provider, and whether the resources directly or indirectly keep current or future fees and charges lower than they otherwise would be.
GASB Technical Plan
The Board approved adding a pre-agenda research project on existing financial reporting entity guidance. The research is expected to focus on component unit determinations, reporting entity note disclosures, and the relationship between reporting entity conclusions and financial reporting model presentation decisions. For governments with complex component unit structures, this is an area worth watching closely.
What Governments Should Watch
Revenue recognition remains the project to watch most closely. Governments should begin thinking about where availability-period policies, grant recognition practices, receivable estimates, refunds, rebates, penalties, credits, and other variable consideration are documented today. Even before an Exposure Draft or final standard, those areas are likely to require clear judgment trails and consistent estimation methods.
For SFS, finance teams should expect the analysis to extend beyond traditional year-end close procedures. If all governments must ultimately perform a forward-looking assessment, preparers will need a defensible process for identifying relevant facts, distinguishing present conditions from future risks, and documenting why disclosure is or is not required.
The subsidies guidance is also practical, especially for business-type activities, enterprise funds, higher education institutions, hospitals, airports, and utilities. Governments should avoid relying solely on transaction labels and instead document the substance of the resource flow, the relationship with the resource provider, and the effect on fees and charges.
Finally, the new reporting entity research project is a reminder that component unit judgments remain high-risk and fact-specific. Governments may want to inventory existing reporting-entity conclusions, evaluate whether note disclosures clearly explain the key judgments, and prepare for future stakeholder outreach or standard-setting activities in this area.
Challenges in the government sector are diverse and unique — we can help.
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.
