FASB Issues Final FSP for Cash Settlements on Contingent Events
| Easy & Profitable Client Payroll with PayCycle|
Now is a great time to get clients set up for payroll. We’d like to invite you to a FREE 60-minute web seminar sponsored by PayCycle, the leader in on-demand payroll. During this informative session, you’ll discover how to:
All PayCycle webinar attendees will receive 1 month free on PayCycle’s service. After the free period, PayCycle costs just $14.99 per client per month for the first 5 employees. Each additional employee is just $0.25 per month. This low monthly fee includes everything you need to process payroll, including a firm-branded website for clients, direct deposit, electronic tax payments and filings, seamless integration with QuickBooks, ATX, CCH and other leading accounting software, free customer support with payroll experts, customized marketing resources to solicit your payroll service to clients, and much more.
According to the FSP, a cash settlement feature that can be exercised only when a contingent event outside the employee’s control occurs, does not meet the conditions of paragraphs 32 and A229 until it is probable the event will occur. When the contingent cash settlement event becomes probable, the entity recognizes a share-based liability equal to the portion of the award attributed to past service for options or other similar instruments. The guidance is applicable only for options, or similar instruments, issued as part of employee compensation arrangements and shall be applied upon initial adoption of Statement 123(R). Entities that have already adopted Statement 123(R) shall apply this FSP guidance in the first reporting period after February 3, 2006, the date on which the FSP was posted to the FASB web site.
The majority of the Board supported the probability approach because it provides internal consistency between the classification of shares and options or similar instruments, then they are issued as employee compensation and embody a conditional obligation to transfer assets. Further, the majority of the Board did not believe an entity should arrive at a different classification based on whether the exchange for employee services was in the form of shares versus an option to purchase shares.