根据批准的租赁会计准则，对出租人来说好消息是FASB（财务会计标准委员会）认为在出租人会计中没有重大缺陷，所以大部分都没有变。租赁的分类，是经营性租赁还是简单融资租赁，仍然没有变。两者的收入核算模式也没有改变，所以不需要有重大的制度改变。
随着收入模式变得更好，对于残值保险把经营性租赁转变为融资租赁的需求将仍然对金融机构来说是一个有用的工具。更重要的是，融资租赁会计避免了投资者重点关注的经营性租赁资产折旧对运行效率的负面影响。
销售类型的改变
销售型租赁的定义仅在需要第三方残值保险把经营性租赁进行转化的的情况下才会改变。这种变化的原因在于与新的收入确认规则相符，该规则把销售定义为基于两方基础上的交易（第三方参与不能创造销售）。
如果不把经营性租赁转化为融资租赁，在租赁期间内毛利润为直线型。如果购买残值保险把经营性租赁转化为融资租赁，毛利润包含于收入摊销和隐形率的计算，这样使毛利润以一个与减少的出租人投资相比恒定的速率得到认可------就像任何其他融资租赁一样。这里的影响适用于那些需要使用残值保险的制造商和经销商。他们的收入模式会在短期内受到影响，尽管只是一个时间差；一旦他们达到了一种旧租赁正在更换新租赁的水平状态，消极的影响将会消失。
加快毛利认可的另一种策略是用第三方供应商出租人购买租约，虽然会有失去对客户控制的损失和财务收入损失的权衡，但这将会让卖家享受销售待遇。
出租人组合融资选择
如果出租人通过借贷和购买来获取租赁资产的投资组合，那与目前的GAAP没有差别，即，出租人把资产记录在成本（100%）中，把资助购买的贷款记为负债。出租人把租赁出去的资产算作融资租赁或经营性租赁，并把利息支出记在贷款项下。如果出租人决定对已购买的资产执行售后回租并且像经常发生的那样在售后回租中包含一个购买选项，新的规则将不认为这是一项销售，所以，销售收入和售后回租被记为负债（混乱和糟糕的结果）。最终用户租约将被记录为经营性租赁或融资租赁。在现行GAAP下，许多出租人使用带有早期买断选项（EBO）的售后回租或购买期权来把经营性租赁资产的组合从他们的账本中移除，在新的规则下，没有认真的构建这将变得很难。如果经过构建使得售后回租有资格作为一个销售的话（需要把出租人看作是安排售后回租的代理人），那么做带有固定价格购买选项的售后回租仍然是有利的。优点在于责任不是债务并且鉴于它是经营性售后回租资本化产生的ROU资产，资产的价值可能更低。
IDC变化
初始直接费用（IDC）的定义将会变为仅包括外部增加的直接费用。在之前的定义允许下，许多出租人把内部初始直接费用分配包括在IDC内。这一变化导致的财务影响在于运营成本的加速（它是一个时间差，所以当新租约以一个平稳的速度取代旧租约时，它会平稳下来）。对运营的影响在于：贷款IDC的定义是不变的，所以同时是贷款人的出租人将会有两个不同的IDC流程。
全方位服务出租人
全方位服务出租人将不得不在损益表上把他们的付款分成租赁和非租赁部分。这应该没有太大问题因为它仅仅是把服务收入放在了另一列上。更加棘手的问题在于承租人将会在过渡期要求生效的新租约以及所有存在的租约的付款成分明细。出租人可以认为这是专有的定价信息。如果他们拒绝提供信息，对于承租人来说将很难找到可观察的租赁和服务组成市场定价。承租人可以使用合理的估计，但这仍取决于在市场信息不可获取的情况下审计员将会如何处理。
透漏租赁和非租赁成分明细的问题可能变成一个有竞争力的问题。如果一些出租人提供明细可能会迫使其他的出租人也提供，因为承租人将可能会要求提供。
杠杆租赁被终止但是现存的租约免受新准则约束
在新准则中对于新租约杠杆租赁规则已经被终止。FASB允许现存的在过渡期的杠杆租赁租约免受新准则的约束。这是一个继续做杠杆租赁的机会，鉴于即便在他们交易过的情况下，新准则也允许他们继续算作杠杆租赁。
免责声明：本文本中的信息仅仅是一个总结，并不构成财务建议。读者应该考虑到个别出租人或承租人业务和产品的所有相关方面从而获得自己独立的会计建议。
以下是原文：
THE NEW LEASE ACCOUNTING STANDARD’S IMPACT ON LESSOR INTERNAL ACCOUNTING ISSUES
Note: This is the second article in a four-part series of articles featured in the QuickBrief e-newsletter designed to help ELFA members prepare for the new lease accounting rules. The new rules are scheduled to take effect for financial periods starting after Dec. 15, 2018, for public companies and after Dec. 15, 2019, for private companies. This article is excerpted from information on ELFA’s Lease Accounting webpage.
Under the approved lease accounting standard, the good news for lessors is the FASB decided that there were no major deficiencies in lessor accounting so they left most of it in place. The classification of leases as either Operating or Finance leases remains the same. The revenue accounting models for both also remain the same so there will be no major systems changes required.
The need for residual value insurance (RVI) to convert Operating leases to Finance leases will remain a useful tool for financial institutions as the income pattern is better. More importantly finance lease accounting avoids depreciation of Operating lease assets that negatively impact operating efficiency ratios which investors focus on.
Sales type changes
The definition of a sales type lease will change only where third party residual insurance was needed to convert the lease from an Operating lease. The reason for this change is to conform to the new revenue recognition rules that define a sale as being based on a transaction between two parties (third party involvement cannot create the sale).
If the Operating lease is not converted to a Finance lease, the gross profit is straight lined over the lease term. If residual insurance is purchased to convert the lease to a finance lease the gross profit is included in the revenue amortization and implicit rate calculations so that the gross profit is recognized at a constant rate versus the declining lessor investment—just like any other Finance lease. The impact here is for those manufacturers and dealers who do need to use RVI. Their revenue pattern will suffer in the short run although it is only a timing difference; once they reach a level state where old leases are replacing new leases the negative impact will disappear.
An alternative strategy to accelerate gross profit recognition is to use a third party vendor lessor to buy the leases which will give the seller sale treatment although there is a tradeoff of loss of control of the customer and loss of finance revenue.
Lessor portfolio funding options
If a lessor acquires its portfolio of leased assets by borrowing and buying, there is no change from current GAAP, that is, the lessor records the asset at cost (100%) and the loan that finances the purchase as debt. The lessor accounts for the asset it leases out as a finance lease or operating lease, and records interest expense on the loan.
If the lessor decides to execute a sale leaseback of those purchased assets and includes a purchase option in the leaseback as often occurs, the new rules would not consider that a sale, so the sales proceeds and leaseback are recorded as debt (a confusing and bad outcome). The end user leases would be recorded as either operating or finance leases. Under current GAAP many lessors use sale leasebacks with early buyout options (EBO) or purchase options to remove their portfolio of operating lease assets from their books—that will not be the case under the new rules without careful structuring. It would still be advantageous to do a sale leaseback with a fixed price purchase option if structured so that it qualifies as a sale (lessors need to be considered an agent arranging the sale leaseback). The benefits are the liability is not debt and the value of the asset is likely to be lower as it would be the ROU asset resulting from capitalizing the operating leaseback.
IDC changes
The definition of initial direct costs (IDC) will change to include only external incremental direct costs. Many lessors allocate internal initial direct costs to be included in IDC as allowed under the previous definition. The financial impact to this change is an acceleration of operating costs (it is a timing difference so it will level off when the new leases are replacing old leases at an even pace). The operational impact is that the definition of loan IDC will remain unchanged so lessors who are also lenders will have two different IDC processes.
Full service lessors
Full service lessors will have to bifurcate their payments into lease and non-lease components in the P&L. This should not be too great an issue as it just puts the service revenue on a different line. The more problematic issue is that lessees will ask for a breakdown of payment components for both new leases and all existing leases that will be in effect on the transition date. Lessors may view this as proprietary pricing information. If they refuse to provide the information it may be difficult for lessees to find observable market pricing for the lease and service components. Lessees can use reasonable estimates but it remains to be seen as to how the auditors will deal with the issue if market information is not available.
The issue of divulging the breakdown of lease and non-lease components may turn out to be a competitive issue. If some lessors provide the breakdown it may force other lessors to do so as lessees will likely demand it.
Leveraged leases dropped but existing leases grandfathered
The leveraged lease rules for new leases have been dropped from the rules. The FASB did allow existing leveraged leases at the transition date to be grandfathered. This is an opportunity to continue to do leveraged leases as the rules will allow them to continue to be accounted for as leveraged leases even after they are traded.
This article is an excerpt from “Navigating the New Lease Accounting Standard” available athttp://www.elfaonline.org/Issues/Accounting/PDFs/Whitepaper_NNLAS.pdf
Disclaimer: The information in this document is a summary only and does not constitute financial advice. Readers should obtain their own independent accounting advice that takes into account all relevant aspects of a particular lessor’s or lessee’s business and products.
联系客服
