FAS 109 valuation allowance and cumulative losses guidance.

• Author: Shah, Rupal
• Position: Financial accounting standards

In the new Sarbanes-Oxley environment, tax departments' calculations of valuation allowances for deferred tax assets have come under intense scrutiny by external auditors. When financial department forecasts are used to substantiate valuation allowance determinations, tax departments are finding a lack of guidance in GAAP on format, contents, and basis of measure in forecast reporting. In addition, while external auditors view forecasts as management reports not subject to audit, tax departments are finding themselves increasingly in the position of explaining significant changes in forecasts used by management for various purposes unrelated to GAAP reporting.

Background

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, in February 1992. The purpose of the statement was to establish financial accounting and reporting standards for the effects of income taxes that result from an entity's activities in the current and preceding years. Throughout this statement, the FASB makes several references to forming a conclusion on the need for a valuation allowance when an entity has recorded cumulative losses in recent years (FAS 109: 23, 99-103). FAS 109 requires a valuation allowance if, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more likely than not that all or some portion of a deferred tax asset will not be realized.

In general, the FASB determined that when an entity reported cumulative pretax losses for financial reporting in the current and two preceding years, this should be considered significant negative evidence that a future benefit of deferred tax assets may not exist, and a valuation allowance would be required.

The FASB stopped short of imposing a mandatory valuation allowance under such circumstances due to the uncertainty of continued losses into the future. For example, the prior three years could have a cumulative net loss reported, but with a large year 1 net loss and with years 2 and 3 showing net income. Assuming years 2 and 3 are the most current tax years, the evidence would seem to indicate that the entity has returned to profitability and will most likely use tax-deferred assets in future years. As a result, the FASB concluded that the weight of positive and negative evidence would need to be examined to determine if a valuation allowance is required. Although the FASB provides a list of negative and positive factors to...