FASB Clarifies Conditional Asset Retirement Obligation
April 21, 2005
The Financial Accounting Standards Board published Interpretation No. 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations,” on March 31. The interpretation clarifies the term conditional asset obligation used in FASB Statement No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” According to the interpretation, a conditional asset retirement obligation refers to a legal obligation to perform the asset retirement activity.
In general, FASB believes that when an obligation meets the definition of a liability, it should be recognized. The Board believes that questions about uncertainty in the timing and method of payment are measurement issues that usually can be addressed by using a fair value measure. The interpretation represents a relatively recent change in thought from FASB’s earlier statements—most notably FASB Statement No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," which required an entity to consider uncertainty in its determination of whether to recognize a liability.
The interpretation is effective no later than the end of fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005 (December 31, 2005, for calendar-year organizations).
For information, please contact Sue Menditto.
- Implementation of Overtime Proposal Could Cost Schools Millions
- NACUBO Responds to GASB Exposure Drafts
- ED Corrects Cash Management Rules
- 2016 CAO and CBO Collaborations
August 1-2, 2016
- 2016 Planning and Budgeting Forum
September 19-20, 2016
- 2016 Managerial Analysis and Decision Support
November 17-18, 2016
- WEBCAST: The Clery Act: Strategic Planning to Mitigate Institutional Risk
Thursday, May 26, 2016 1:00PM ET
- ON-DEMAND: Title IX: Key Issues Surrounding Institutional Compliance
- ON-DEMAND: Containing Cost and Risk with Renewables – the Power Purchase Agreement Story
- ON-DEMAND: NACUBO Live! Higher Education Accounting Forum
- ON-DEMAND: Are Hedge Funds and Private Equity Right for You? An Analysis of Alternative Investments
- ON-DEMAND: Responsibility Center Management: Two Different Perspectives