Presented by Vincent Leo, CPA and Jennifer Martlew, CPA on November 18, 2104

1. Insero & Company’s 2014 Accounting & Finance Education Series
2014 Audit & Accounting Update
presented by
Vincent Leo, CPA
Jennifer Martlew, CPA, CFE
November 18, 2014

2. Vincent Leo, CPA
Vincent is a Partner in our Audit and Business
Advisory Services Group. He has more than
25 years’ experience serving some of the
area’s largest companies. He joined Insero &
Company as a Partner during 2002 from
Arthur Andersen where he was a Partner in
their Rochester office. He has advised his
clients on technical accounting matters, private
placements, public offerings, and numerous
acquisitions, mergers, and divestitures.

3. Jennifer Martlew, CPA, CFE
Jennifer is a Partner in the Audit Department
and has been with Insero & Company since
2000. She leads the planning and execution of
audits for large multi-national clients, as well
as many closely held middle market
corporations. She has also helped to grow the
company's benefit plan audit practice into one
of the 25 largest benefit plan audit practices in
the United States.

4. Agenda
• Overview
• FASB/IASB Convergence
• Private Company Financial Reporting
• FASB Updates
• 401(k) Plan Trends
• FASB Pipeline
• Questions

5. Regulatory Initiatives
• Private company vs. public company GAAP
• U.S. GAAP/International Standards convergence
• Simplification of accounting standards
• PCAOB activities
• Auditing Standards Board activities
• Securities and Exchange Commission
• Sarbanes-Oxley/Internal Controls (COSO Update)

6. FASB/IASB
Convergence

7. FASB/IASB Convergence
Background
February 2006—The FASB and IASB entered into a memorandum of
understanding which identified long-term and short-term projects designed to
improve IFRS and U.S. GAAP and bring them closer together.
Major Long-Term Projects
1. Financial instruments
2. Revenue recognition
3. Leases
4. Presentation of other comprehensive income
5. Fair value measurement
6. Insurance contracts
7. Derecognition and consolidation
8. Financial statement presentation (including discontinued
operations)

8. FASB/IASB Convergence
(continued)
Short-Term Projects
1. Fair value option, investment properties, R&D, and subsequent
events (FASB projects)
2. Income taxes and impairment (joint projects)
3. Borrowing costs, government grants, joint ventures, and
segment reporting (IASB projects)

9. FASB/IASB Convergence
(continued)
December 2007—SEC announced its intention to consider whether
domestic issuers should be required or permitted to use IFRS in their
filings.
November 2008—SEC issued a proposed roadmap for the potential use of
IFRS by U.S. issuers.
February 2010—SEC issued a statement in support of convergence and
global accounting standards with a directive to develop a work plan on
how to transition to a system incorporating IFRS.
July 2012—SEC completes work plan related to global accounting
standards. The report noted little support for direct incorporation of IFRS
into the U.S. financial reporting system but substantial support for
exploring other methods of incorporating IFRS, including continued
convergence work with the IASB.

10. FASB/IASB Convergence
(continued)
December 2013—In decisions moving away from converging accounting
for financial instruments, the FASB decided to retain certain U.S. GAAP
components, making convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS less likely for
financial instruments.
February 2014—SEC published its five year strategic plan. Without
specifically mentioning IFRS, the plan noted that the SEC intends to
consider whether a single set of global accounting standards is
achievable.
February 2014—The FASB reached a tentative decision to limit the scope
of the insurance accounting standard, departing from the model in the joint
exposure drafts.
March 2014—The Boards departed from their joint exposure drafts on the
lease accounting model.

11. FASB/IASB Convergence
(continued)
Successes: The Boards have been able to converge a number of
standards in full or in part.
• Business combinations—standards have similar principle and
requirements but some differences remain
• Fair value measurement—standards are generally converged
• Share-based compensation—standards are generally converged
• Consolidated financial statements—converged in part, but not with
respect to control as the basis for consolidation
• Segment reporting—generally converged
• Accounting changes—converged
• Derecognition—agreed on disclosures but not on principles for
derecognition
• Discontinued operations—converged
• Revenue recognition—converged

12. FASB/IASB Convergence
(continued)
Current Status:
• Insurance contracts—convergence unlikely
• Financial instruments—convergence unlikely
• Leases—continue dialog but there are significant differences between
the Boards
• Several joint projects were subsequently discontinued (e.g., income
taxes, government grants)

13. FASB/IASB Convergence
(continued)
Summary:
• FASB and IASB have been working together to converge US GAAP
and IFRS for more than a decade.
• Goal is a single set of accounting and reporting standards.
• To date, a number of projects have been successfully completed and
many standards have been made more comparable.
• Efforts to conclude several major convergence projects, including
financial instruments, leases, and insurance contracts, have run into
significant roadblocks.
• SEC has yet to indicate when it will make a decision on the use of
IFRS in the United States.
• Future of convergence and U.S. adoption of IFRS is uncertain.

14. Private Company
Reporting

15. http://bcove.me/q3se0vy5

16. Private Company Reporting
At the end of 2013, the FASB and the Private Company Council (PCC)
issued the final Private Company Decision-Making Framework: A Guide
for Evaluating Financial Accounting and Reporting for Private Companies
(the Guide).
The Framework discusses factors that may differentiate the financial
reporting considerations of private companies from public companies.
The Guide is intended to assist the FASB and the PCC in determining
whether and when to provide alternative recognition, measurement,
disclosure, display, effective date, or transition guidance for private
companies reporting under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP).
Private companies may select the alternatives that they believe are
appropriate to apply.

17. Private Company Reporting
(continued)
The FASB and PCC have identified certain factors that differentiate the
financial reporting considerations of private companies from public
companies:
• The number of primary financial statement users and their access to
management;
• The investment strategies of primary users;
• The ownership and capital structures;
• Accounting resources; and
• The manner in which preparers learn about new financial reporting
guidance.

18. Private Company Reporting
(continued)
1. The number of primary financial statement users and their access to
management
• Types of financial statement users are generally the same for private and
public companies.
• Private company may have fewer users and those users may have
access to management and may receive information throughout the year.
• This factor is more relevant to disclosure matters than recognition and
measurement matters.
2. The investment strategies of primary users
• Most private company investors indicate that they are more interested in
accounting guidance that affects reported cash amounts or probable
future cash flows.

19. Private Company Reporting
(continued)
3. The ownership and capital structures
• Capital structure and capital funding of private companies vary from
public companies.
• Many private companies also have multiple entities under common
ownership, which often results in transactions with affiliates and other
related parties, as well as guarantees and cross-collateral arrangements
with lenders.
4. Accounting resources
• Private companies generally have resource constraints and less
specialized accounting personnel.
5. The manner in which preparers learn about new financial reporting guidance
• Generally learn about new guidance from their public accountants.
• Receive education updates in the second half of the year.
• Should be considered when effective dates are established.

20. Private Company Reporting
(continued)
The Guide also sets forth five areas (known as modules) where financial
accounting and reporting guidance might differ for private and public
companies:
• Recognition and measurement;
• Disclosures;
• Display (presentation);
• Effective dates; and
• Transition method

21. FASB Updates

22. Summary of New Accounting Standards Updates
Since September 2013

23. ASU 2013-12
Definition of a Public Business Entity—An Addition to the
Master Glossary
• This guidance amends the Glossary of the Codification to include one
definition of a public business entity for future use in U.S. GAAP.
• The definition of a public business entity will be used in considering the
scope of new financial guidance and will identify whether the guidance
does or does not apply to public business entities.
• In general, a public business entity is any entity that is subject to
SEC/Regulatory filing requirements. Excludes not-for-profit entities.

24. ASU 2014-01
Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323):
Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing
Projects (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task
Force)
Applies to all reporting entities that invest in qualified affordable housing
projects through limited liability entities. These amendments permit
reporting entities to make an accounting policy election to account for their
investments in qualified affordable housing projects using the proportional
amortization method if certain conditions are met. Disclosures for a
change in accounting principle are required upon transition.

25. ASU 2014-02
Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Accounting for
Goodwill (a consensus of the Private Company Council)
Current GAAP:
• Goodwill is not amortized.
• Requires that goodwill of a reporting unit be tested for impairment at
least annually or more frequently if certain conditions exist. An entity
can choose to either perform a qualitative assessment to determine
whether it is more likely than not that a reporting unit’s fair value is less
than its carrying amount, or proceed directly to step one of the
impairment test, which is to compare the carrying amount of the
reporting unit with its fair value. In calculating the amount of the
impairment, an entity must compare the implied fair value of the
reporting unit’s goodwill with its carrying amount. That necessitates
performing a hypothetical application of the acquisition method to
determine the implied fair value of goodwill after measuring the
reporting unit’s identifiable assets and liabilities.

26. ASU 2014-02 (continued)
Private Company Alternative:
• These amendments permit a private company to subsequently
amortize goodwill on a straight-line basis over a period of ten years, or
less if the company demonstrates that another useful life is more
appropriate. It also permits a private company to apply a simplified
impairment model to goodwill.
• A private company that elects the accounting alternative is further
required to make an accounting policy election to test goodwill for
impairment at either the company level or the reporting unit level.
• Goodwill should be tested for impairment when a triggering event
occurs that indicates that the fair value of a company (or a reporting
unit) may be below its carrying amount.
• Further simplifies goodwill impairment by eliminating step two of the
current impairment test, which requires the hypothetical application of
the acquisition method to calculate the goodwill impairment amount.
• Effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014.

27. ASU 2014-03
Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Accounting for Certain
Receive-Variable, Pay-Fixed Interest Rate Swaps—Simplified
Hedge Accounting Approach (a consensus of the Private
Company Council)
• These amendments offer private companies (other than financial
institutions) the option to use a simplified approach to account for
interest rate swaps that are entered into for the purpose of converting
variable-rate interest payments to fixed-rate payments.
• Provides a practical expedient to apply a more simplified cash flow
hedge accounting approach to account for interest rate swaps in a less
costly and complex manner.
• Allows the swap to be measured at its settlement value instead of fair
value.

28. ASU 2014-03 (continued)
• Reduces private companies’ income statement volatility while still
providing relevant information for lenders and investors.
• Effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014.

29. ASU 2014-04
Receivables—Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors
(Subtopic 310-40): Reclassification of Residential Real Estate
Collateralized Consumer Mortgage Loans upon Foreclosure
(a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)
• These amendments are intended to clarify when a creditor should be
considered to have received physical possession of residential real
estate property collateralizing a consumer mortgage loan such that the
loan should be derecognized and the real estate recognized.

30. ASU 2014-05
Service Concession Arrangements (Topic 853) (a consensus
of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)
• Applies to an operating entity of a service concession arrangement
entered into with a public-sector entity grantor.
• Update states that an operating entity should not account for a service
concession arrangement as a lease in accordance with ASC Topic 840.
An operating entity should refer to other Topics as applicable to
account for various aspects of a service concession arrangement. The
amendment also specifies that the infrastructure used in a service
concession arrangement should not be recognized as property, plant,
and equipment of the operating entity.
• Effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014.

31. ASU 2014-06
Technical Corrections and Improvements Related to Glossary
Terms
The amendments in this Update represent changes to clarify the Master
Glossary of the Codification, consolidate multiple instances of the same
term into a single definition, or make minor improvements to the Master
Glossary that are not expected to result in substantive changes to the
application of existing guidance or create a significant administrative cost
to most entities. Additionally, the amendments will make the Master
Glossary easier to understand, as well as reduce the number of terms
appearing in the Master Glossary.

32. ASU 2014-07
Consolidation (Topic 810): Applying Variable Interest Entities
Guidance to Common Control Leasing Arrangements (a
consensus of the Private Company Council)
• Current U.S. GAAP, requires a reporting entity to consolidate an entity
in which it has a controlling financial interest using either the voting
interest model or the variable interest entity (VIE) model.
• These amendments allow a private company to elect (when certain
conditions exist) not to apply variable interest entity guidance to a
lessor under common control. Instead, the private company would
make certain disclosures about the lessor and leasing arrangement.

33. ASU 2014-07 (continued)
• A private company lessee could elect the alternative when:
1) The private company lessee and the lessor are under common
control;
2) The private company lessee has a leasing arrangement with
the lessor;
3) Substantially all of the activity between the private company
lessee and the lessor is related to the leasing activities
between those two companies; and
4) If the private company lessee explicitly guarantees or provides
collateral for any obligation of the lessor related to the
asset leased by the private company, and the principal
amount of the obligation at inception does not exceed the
value of the asset leased by the private company from the
lessor.

34. ASU 2014-07 (continued)
• Alternative needs to be applied to all common control leasing
arrangements.
• Still need to review leasing arrangement to determine classification as
operating or capital.
• Effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014. If
elected, the accounting alternative should be applied retrospectively to
all periods presented.

35. ASU 2014-08
Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and
Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting
Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of
Components of an Entity
• Part of the FASB/IASB convergence project.
• Changes the criteria for reporting discontinued operations while
enhancing disclosures in this area. It also addresses inconsistent
application related to financial reporting of discontinued operations
guidance in U.S. GAAP.
• Narrows the scope of what is considered a discontinued operation.
• Under the new guidance, only disposals representing a strategic shift
in operations should be presented as discontinued operations. Those
strategic shifts should have a major effect on the organization’s
operations and financial results. Examples include a disposal of a
major geographic area or a major line of business.

36. ASU 2014-08 (continued)
• In addition, the new guidance requires expanded disclosures about
discontinued operations that will provide financial statement users with
more information about the assets, liabilities, income, and expenses of
discontinued operations.
• The amendments in the ASU are effective in the first quarter of 2015
for public organizations with calendar year ends. For most nonpublic
organizations, it is effective for annual financial statements with fiscal
years beginning on or after December 15, 2014. Early adoption is
permitted.

37. ASU 2014-09
Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)
• In May 2014, FASB and IASB both issued new revenue recognition
guidance. The guidance is nearly identical and represents a single,
global revenue recognition model.
• This project to converge revenue recognition guidance took almost a
decade.
• Applies to revenue from contracts with customers unless those
contracts are within the scope of other standards (e.g., insurance
contracts or leases).
• Principles based model replacing virtually all the U.S. GAAP guidance
that currently exists on revenue recognition, including disclosure
requirements.
• Effective for public entities for annual periods beginning after 12/15/16;
Annual periods beginning after 12/15/17 for nonpublic entities.

38. ASU 2014-09 (continued)
• Although the accounting for most revenue transactions (e.g., retail
sales to consumers) will likely remain the same, many companies will
see changes to their revenue recognition policies.
• Impact will vary depending on the nature and terms of an entity's
revenue-generating transactions.
• Entities in the software, telecommunications, and real estate industries
may be significantly affected and are likely to recognize revenue
earlier. Some entities in the asset management industry may be
significantly affected and recognize revenue later.
• Entities in those industries where the industry specific guidance was
eliminated will be affected.

39. ASU 2014-09 (continued)
• While most of the legacy U.S. GAAP revenue recognition guidance will
be removed from the Codification, the following guidance will remain:
• Agricultural cooperatives in the agricultural industry;
• Insurance contracts for insurance entities;
• Contributions for not-for-profit entities; and
• Alternative revenue programs for rate regulated entities.
• The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize
revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to
customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the
entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.

40. ASU 2014-09 (continued)
The application of the following five steps guides the recognition of
revenue pursuant to the core principle:
1. Identify the contract with a customer;
2. Identify the separate performance obligations;
3. Determine the transaction price;
4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations;
5. Recognize revenue when (or as) the performance obligation is
satisfied.

41. ASU 2014-09 (continued)
Action Items:
1. Review current revenue recognition process.
2. Identify contracts, customers, and performance obligations and
determine the effect of the new guidance.
3. The following factors should be considered when implementing the
new guidance:
• Transition method to be used
• Which disclosures are applicable and what data needs to be
collected
• Changes in internal controls/processes that may be required
• Effect on compensation plans
4. Communicate potential impact to investors/lenders (e.g., consider
impact on debt covenants)

42. ASU 2014-10
Development Stage Entities (Topic 915): Elimination of
Certain Financial Reporting Requirements, Including an
Amendment to Variable Interest Entities Guidance in Topic
810, Consolidation
• Removes the financial reporting distinction between development
stage entities and other reporting entities from U.S. GAAP.
• Eliminates the requirements for development stage entities to (1)
present inception-to-date information in the statements of income, cash
flows, and shareholder equity, (2) label the financial statements as
those of a development stage entity, (3) disclose a description of the
development stage activities in which the entity is engaged, and (4)
disclose in the first year in which the entity is no longer a development
stage entity that in prior years it had been in the development stage.

43. ASU 2014-11
Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860): Repurchase-to-Maturity
Transactions, Repurchase Financings, and Disclosures
• Repurchase agreements are transactions in which the transferor
transfers a financial asset to a transferee in exchange for cash and
concurrently agrees to reacquire that financial asset at a future date for
an amount equal to the cash exchanged plus or minus a stipulated
interest factor.
• Repurchase agreements are used by some companies and institutions
as a source of short-term financing on a collateralized basis, allowing
lenders in this market to invest money on a secured, short-term basis.

44. ASU 2014-11 (continued)
• The amendments in this update require two accounting changes:
• First, they change the accounting for repurchase-to-maturity transactions
to secured borrowing accounting (eliminates sale accounting for such
transactions).
• Second, for repurchase financing arrangements, the amendments require
separate accounting for a transfer of a financial asset executed
contemporaneously with a repurchase agreement with the same
counterparty, which will result in secured borrowing accounting for the
repurchase agreement.
• Brings U.S. GAAP into greater alignment with IFRS for repurchase-to-maturity
transactions.

45. ASU 2014-12
Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Accounting
for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award
Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after
the Requisite Service Period
• Clarifies treatment of certain stock awards with performance targets.
• Requires that a performance target that affects vesting and that could
be achieved after the requisite service period be treated as a
performance condition.
• Consistent with existing GAAP, performance conditions that affect
vesting should not be reflected in estimating the grant date fair value of
the award.
• Compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it
becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and
should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for
which the requisite service has already been rendered.

46. ASU 2014-13
Consolidation (Topic 810): Measuring the Financial Assets
and the Financial Liabilities of a Consolidated Collateralized
Financing Entity (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues
Task Force)
• Provides an alternative for measuring the financial assets and the
financial liabilities of a consolidated collateralized financing entity to
eliminate the difference in the fair value of the financial assets of a
collateralized financing entity, as determined under GAAP, when they
differ from the fair value of its financial liabilities even when the
financial liabilities have recourse only to the financial assets.
• When the measurement alternative is elected, both the financial assets
and the financial liabilities of the collateralized financing entity should
be measured using the more observable of the fair value of the
financial assets or the fair value of the financial liabilities.

47. ASU 2014-14
Receivables—Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors
(Subtopic 310-40): Classification of Certain Government-
Guaranteed Mortgage Loans upon Foreclosure (a consensus
of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)
• Affects creditors that hold government-guaranteed mortgage loans,
including those guaranteed by the FHA and the VA.
• Requires that a mortgage loan be derecognized and a separate other
receivable be recognized upon foreclosure if the following conditions
are met:
1. The loan has a government guarantee that is not separable from the loan
before foreclosure.
2. At the time of foreclosure, the creditor has the intent to convey the real
estate property to the guarantor and make a claim on the guarantee, and
the creditor has the ability to recover under that claim.
3. At the time of foreclosure, any amount of the claim that is determined on
the basis of the fair value of the real estate is fixed.

48. ASU 2014-15
Presentation of Financial Statements—Going Concern
(Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an
Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern
• Under GAAP, financial statements are prepared under the presumption
that the reporting organization will continue to operate as a going
concern, except in limited circumstances.
• This ASU defines management’s responsibility to evaluate whether
there is substantial doubt about an organization’s ability to continue as
a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures.
• Should reduce diversity in the timing and content of footnote
disclosures.
• Effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016, and
for annual periods and interim periods thereafter. Early application is
permitted.

49. ASU 2014-16
Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815) Determining Whether
the Host Contract in a Hybrid Financial Instrument Issued in
the Form of a Share Is More Akin to Debt or to Equity
Certain classes of shares include features that entitle the holders to
preferences and rights (such as conversion rights, redemption rights,
voting powers, and liquidation and dividend payment preferences) over the
other shareholders. Shares that include embedded derivative features are
referred to as hybrid financial instruments, which must be separated from
the host contract and accounted for as a derivative if certain criteria are
met.
ASU clarifies how to make this determination and eliminates the use of
different methods in practice.

50. Questions ?

51. Are you meeting your
fiduciary responsibilities?
Do you even know what they are?

52. DOL Definition
The Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (“ERISA”) of 1974 sets forth general rules
which fiduciaries are required to follow. Below
is a summary of the Prudent Man Rule:
A fiduciary must act “with the care, skill,
prudence and diligence under the
circumstances then prevailing that a
prudent man acting in a like capacity”
would act.

53. Who is a Fiduciary?
A plan’s fiduciaries will ordinarily include:
• the trustee,
• investment advisers,
• all individuals exercising discretion in the administration of
the plan, all members of a plan’s administrative committee
(if it has such a committee), and those who select
committee officials.
• Attorneys, accountants, and actuaries generally are NOT
fiduciaries when acting solely in their professional
capacities.
• The key to determining whether an individual or an entity is
a fiduciary is whether they are exercising discretion or
control over the plan.

54. What Is The Significance?
Fiduciaries have important responsibilities and are
subject to standards of conduct because they act on
behalf of participants in a retirement plan and their
beneficiaries. These responsibilities include:
• Acting solely in the interest of plan participants
and their beneficiaries and with the exclusive
purpose of providing benefits to them;
• Carrying out their duties prudently;
• Following the plan documents (unless inconsistent
with ERISA);
• Diversifying plan investments; and
• Paying only reasonable plan expenses.

55. What is the Risk?
• With these fiduciary responsibilities, there is
also potential liability. Fiduciaries who do not
follow the basic standards of conduct may
be personally liable to restore any losses to
the plan, or to restore any profits made
through improper use of the plan’s assets
resulting from their actions.

56. How Can You Reduce the Risk?
• Fiduciaries can limit their liability in certain
situations
• Document the processes used to carry out
fiduciary responsibilities
• Provide participants with diversified investment
options and sufficient information to make
informed decisions
• Hire a Co-Fiduciary

57. Sample Documentation Cycle
• Q1
− Investment Review
− Administrative Fee Review
− Investment Expense
Analysis
− Benchmarking and Trends
− Recordkeeping Negotiations
• Q3
− Investment Review
− Record keeper Services
Update
− Plan Demographic Review
− Educational Advice Plan
− Plan Design
• Q2
− Investment Review
− Investment Policy Statement
Review
− Regulatory and Legislative
Update
− Committee Best Practices
− Bonding and Fiduciary
Insurance
• Q4
− Investment Review
− Investment Menu Review
− Trends and Best Practices

58. Fees
Fees are just one of several factors fiduciaries need
to consider in deciding on service providers and plan
investments.
• When the fees for services are paid out of plan
assets, fiduciaries will want to understand the fees
and expenses charged and the services provided.
• While the law does not specify a permissible level
of fees, it does require that fees charged to a plan
be “reasonable.”
• After careful evaluation during the initial selection,
the plan’s fees and expenses should be monitored
to determine whether they continue to be
reasonable.

59. Monitoring Service Providers
An employer should establish and follow a formal review process at
reasonable intervals to decide if it wants to continue using the current
service providers or look for replacements. When monitoring service
providers, actions to ensure they are performing the agreed-upon services
include:
• Evaluating any notices received from the service provider about
possible changes to their compensation and the other information they
provided when hired (or when the contract or arrangement was
renewed);
• Reviewing the service providers’ performance;
• Reading any reports they provide;
• Checking actual fees charged;
• Asking about policies and practices (such as trading, investment
turnover, and proxy voting); and
• Following up on participant complaints.

60. Participant Education
• Hire investment advisers to offer specific
advice. These advisers are fiduciaries and
have a responsibility to the plan participants.
• Hire a service provider to provide general
financial and investment education,
interactive investment materials and
information based on asset allocation
models
• Participation Campaigns

61. Important Reminders for 2014
• IRS has increased some of the limits applicable to qualified plans for 2015
• Participant-directed defined contribution plans must provide annual notices
regarding plan expenses and investments. These are due 12 months from the
last notice.
• If you have an automatic enrollment 401(k) or 403(b) plan, regardless of
whether it is a “safe harbor” plan, you must provide your automatic enrollment
annual notice by December 1, 2014 if you have a calendar year plan.
• If you want to make any amendments to your plan, you may need to adopt
them before the end of the current plan year. Generally, an amendment to a
qualified retirement plan that takes effect during a plan year must be adopted
before the end of the plan year, unless Congress or the IRS has granted an
extension.
• If you expect to have assets remaining in your defined contribution plan’s
forfeiture account at the end of the year, you should review your options and
obligations under the plan document to determine whether you can (and
whether you must) make arrangements to use up your forfeiture account this
year. The IRS has emphasized that plans generally should not be carrying
forfeiture balances over from year to year.

62. A Look Ahead at 2015
If your plan uses an “individually designed” document and the
plan sponsor EIN on your plan’s Form 5500 ends in “4” or “9,”
your plan must be submitted to the IRS for re-approval by
January 31, 2015 unless you have taken the necessary steps
by then to document your plan’s conversion to an IRS
pre-approved prototype or volume submitter document for the
future. A plan sponsor whose EIN ends in “5” or “0” must
submit an individually designed plan document for re-approval
by January 31, 2016. Special rules may apply if you are part
of a group of companies that has opted to use the same cycle
for all determination letter applications, or in certain other
limited circumstances.

63. Important Development in 2014
• Supreme Court Rules in Favor of
Contractual Statutes of Limitations in ERISA
Plans
• Supreme Court Will Hear More Employee
Benefits Cases Next Term
• Plan Loans
• Lifetime Income Options for Defined
Contribution Plans
• IRA Rollovers

64. Questions ?

65. FASB
Pipeline

66. FASB Pipeline
Recognition and Measurement
• Inventory Measurement—In Process
• Leases—Exposure Draft
• Pension Plan Asset Measurement Date—Comment Period
• Accounting for Financial Instruments—Exposure Draft
• Goodwill for Public Entities and Not-for-Profits—In Process
• Consolidation: Principal versus Agent Analysis—Final Standard Q4 2014
• Identifiable Intangible Assets in a Business Combination (PCC Issue 13-
01A)—Final Standard Q4 2014
• Cloud Computing Arrangements—Comment Period
• Pushdown Accounting—Final Standard Q4 2014

67. FASB Pipeline (continued)
Presentation and Disclosure
• Investment Companies: Disclosures about Investments in Another
Investment Company – ED Q4 2014
• Presentation of Debt Issuance Cost—Comment Period
• Disclosure Framework—In Process
• Insurance: Disclosures about Short-Term Contracts—Final
Standard Q1 2015
• Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the
Concept of Extraordinary Items—Drafting Final Standard
• Simplifying the Balance Sheet Classification of Debt—In Process
• Certain Investments Measured at Net Asset Value—Comment
Period
• Financial Statements of Not-for-Profits—ED Q1 2015

68. Pushdown Accounting
• On October 8, 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
agreed to issue new guidance on pushdown accounting.
• Pushdown accounting refers to pushing down the acquirer's
accounting and reporting basis (which is recognized in conjunction with
its accounting for a business combination) to the acquiree's standalone
financial statements.
• Will apply to both public and private companies. Upon issuance of the
final ASU, private companies will have pushdown accounting guidance
directly applicable to them and will no longer have to analogize to the
SEC staff's guidance on the subject.

69. Pushdown Accounting (continued)
• Pushdown accounting will be optional for an acquiree once the
acquirer in a business combination obtains control over the acquiree
and will not be required in any circumstances. This is different than the
SEC staff's existing pushdown accounting guidance, which does not
permit pushdown accounting until the acquirer obtains at least an 80%
interest in the acquiree and generally requires pushdown accounting
when the acquirer obtains more than a 95% interest in the acquiree.
• Will require additional disclosures.
• Effective upon issuance of the final ASU. The FASB's website indicates
that the drafting of the final ASU is expected to take place in the fourth
quarter of 2014.

70. Presentation of Debt Issuance Cost
• The FASB has received feedback that having different balance sheet
presentation requirements for debt issuance cost and debt discount or
premium creates unnecessary complexity.
• If finalized, this proposed ASU would require that debt issuance costs
be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the
carrying amount of debt liability, consistent with debt discounts or
premiums.
• The proposed guidance would be adopted on a retrospective basis,
wherein the balance sheet of each individual period presented would
be adjusted to reflect the period-specific effects of applying the new
guidance.
• The proposed ASU is available for comment until December 15, 2014.

71. Not-for-Profit Financial Statements
The objective of this project is to reexamine existing standards for financial
statement presentation by not-for-profit entities (NFP), focusing on
improving:
1. Net asset classification requirements
2. Information provided in financial statements and notes about liquidity,
financial performance, and cash flows.

72. http://bcove.me/35ip7053

73. Lease Accounting Update
Refresher:
• August 2010 joint exposure drafts would have required the recognition
of assets and liabilities arising under all leases (this proposal received
significant criticism from certain parties).
• May 2013 revised exposure drafts issued. For leases of more than 12
months duration, lessees would be required to recognize assets and
liabilities for the rights and obligations created by the lease. Leases
where a more than insignificant amount of the value of the asset is
consumed during the lease period would be treated as Type A leases,
while leases under which an insignificant amount of the value of the
underlying asset is consumed would be treated as Type B leases.
Type B leases would report lease expense on a straight-line basis (this
proposal was also met with significant criticism).

74. Lease Accounting Update
(continued)
Update:
• The Boards have continued to deliberate, although their positions have
become less converged rather than moving closer together.
• Boards continue work on this project and have found common ground
on several issues but have not been able to resolve their fundamental
differences on lessee accounting.
• While both Boards believe that leases should be included on the
balance sheets, they now differ on their approaches.
• The FASB is taking a dual approach, with lease classification similar to
the existing model assessing whether a lease is effectively an installment
purchase (i.e., a capital lease) or an operating lease.
• The IASB decided on a single approach for all leases treating them
essentially as capital leases, with the lessee required to recognize
amortization of the lease asset separately from interest on the lease
liability.

75. Lease Accounting Update
(continued)
For the most part, the FASB’s redeliberations on its leases project have
been conducted on a joint basis with the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB). Recent discussions have focused on separation
of lease and nonlease components, subleases, sale-leaseback
transactions and financial statement presentation and disclosure matters.
While the lease project remains a joint project, decisions reached on
certain issues during redeliberations have not been converged.
While no formal indication of timing is provided on the FASB’s website, the
earliest that this project will be completed is 2015. Delayed effective dates
will most likely be provided.

76. Identifiable Intangible Assets in a Business
Combination (PCC Issue 13-01A)
• A private company could choose to elect an accounting policy under
which it would not separately recognize the following intangible assets
in the accounting for a business combination: (a) intangible assets that
would otherwise arise from noncompete agreements or (b) customer-related
intangible assets that cannot be separately sold or licensed.
The value of these intangible assets would effectively be subsumed
into goodwill.
• The PCC also decided that a private company would only be able to
elect this alternative if it also elects (or has already elected) the private-company
goodwill alternative.
• To become part of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), the alternative must be endorsed by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB) and issued in a final Accounting Standards
Update (ASU). This alternative was endorsed by FASB on November
5, 2014 and the final ASU is expected in Q4 2014.

77. Customer’s Accounting for Fees in
a Cloud Computing Arrangement
• Proposed ASU issued. Comment period expires November 18, 2014.
• Current GAAP addresses the accounting for cloud service providers
but does not include explicit guidance about a customer's accounting
for its fees paid to the cloud service provider. Cloud computing
arrangements include software as a service, platform as a service,
infrastructure as a service and other similar hosting arrangements.
• The proposed guidance would help customers determine whether a
cloud computing arrangement includes a software license. If a cloud
computing arrangement includes a software license, the customer
would account for the software license consistent with the acquisition
of other software licenses. If a cloud computing arrangement does not
include a software license, the customer would account for the
arrangement as a service contract.

78. Measurement Date of an Employer’s
Defined Benefit Obligation and Plan Assets
• If finalized, this proposed ASU would provide a practical expedient for
employers with fiscal year-ends that do not fall on a month-end by
permitting those employers to measure defined benefit plan assets and
obligations as of the month-end that is closest to the entity's fiscal
year-end and to follow that measurement date methodology
consistently from year to year. The proposed amendments would be
applied prospectively.
• The proposed ASU is available for comment until December 15, 2014.

79. Extraordinary Items
The FASB has decided to eliminate the concept of extraordinary items
from U.S. GAAP and is drafting a final Accounting Standards Update
(ASU). The amendments in the ASU are expected to: (1) be effective for
annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015; (2) allow early
application; and (3) be applied prospectively, with optional retrospective
application.

80. Questions ?

81. Thank You
Thank you for your attendance at
today’s program.
For more information regarding the topics
discussed today, please feel free to contact:
Vincent Leo, CPA Michael Giess, CPA
vincent.leo@inserocpa.com michael.giess@inserocpa.com
585.697.9683 585.697.9639
Jennifer Martlew, CPA, CFE
jennifer.martlew@inserocpa.com
585.697.9624
Insero & Company CPAs, P.C.
www.inserocpa.com

82. Insero & Company CPAs, P.C.
Certified Public Accountants
Business & Financial Advisors
Rochester >> 585.454.6996
Corning >> 607.973.2075
Disclaimer
These materials were prepared solely for the purpose of continuing professional education. They are distributed with the understanding that
Insero & Company CPAs, P.C. and its employees are not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service as part of this
CPE presentation. If advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Please
contact an Insero & Company team member with any questions.
The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Insero & Company CPAs, P.C.
guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omission, or for results obtained
by others as a result of reliance upon such information. Insero & Company CPAs, P.C. assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any
changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide
legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular
situation. Circular 230 Disclosure: Any information contained herein, or on any website or email link associated with this document is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.
Insero & Company CPAs, P.C. is an integral part of the McGladrey Alliance, a premiere affiliation of independent accounting and consulting
firms in the United States, with more than 90 members in 42 states and Puerto Rico. McGladrey Alliance member firms maintain their name,
autonomy and independence and are responsible for their own client fee arrangements, delivery of services and maintenance of client
relationships. McGladrey Alliance is a business of McGladrey LLP which operates under the McGladrey brand as the fifth largest U.S.
provider of assurance, tax and consulting services. McGladrey, the McGladrey logo and the McGladrey Alliance signatures are used under
license by McGladrey LLP. McGladrey, the McGladrey logo, the McGladrey Alliance signatures and The McGladrey Classic logo are used
under license by McGladrey LLP. Correspondent of the RSM International network of independent accounting, tax and consulting firms.