Blog – 2 Column

FASB Crypto Accounting Changes: A Jargon-free Guide

This article is written by Fortris The new FASB guidance on accounting for crypto assets such as Bitcoin has officially come into effect. Here’s a breakdown of the changes, and what they mean for businesses that hold (or are considering holding) Bitcoin on balance sheet. Background to the changes The Financial Standards Accounting Board (FASB) is an independent body recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as the United States’ designated accounting standard setter. The FASB sets accounting standards for public and private companies and not-for-profit organizations that follow the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The FASB and crypto accounting Previously, the FASB had issued no specific guidelines on how cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin should be recorded and measured on the balance sheet. But in December 2021, they announced a project to review how a certain subset of crypto assets are accounted for and reported on in financial disclosures such as quarterly and annual reports. The crypto assets covered by this review have six characteristics, which are explained in this video by the FASB. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are included, but other assets such as NFTs are not. In March 2023, the FASB released exposure documents for this proposed change, and invited public feedback. Finally, on 13 December 2023, the board issued their new guidelines in an Accounting Standards Update. What was the problem with the former system? Crypto assets such as Bitcoin were previously treated as indefinite-lived, intangible assets, along with other non-physical assets such as trademarks and patents. They were accounted for using a “cost-less-impairment” model. Impairment is a reduction in the value of a company’s asset. There were some exceptions for investment companies and broker-dealers, but otherwise, this meant the following: As discussed in a recent MicroStrategy World panel discussion with experts from Deloitte, this was a “one-way street”. The on-paper value of Bitcoin held by a company could be marked down, but not up, until it was sold – even if the price of Bitcoin rose in the interim. As the FASB noted in its media advisory of March 2023, this approach to accounting did not give clarity to potential investors. This is because the balance sheet value of a company’s Bitcoin holdings was unlikely to reflect its current market value, making it hard to assess the company’s financial health. It could also be time-consuming and therefore expensive for companies to track the lowest identifiable price for a crypto asset within any given reporting period, including within the day. What has changed under the new rules? The most headline-grabbing change in the FASB’s Accounting Standards Update (ASU) is the move away from the cost-less-impairment model. A move to fair value accounting for crypto As Deloitte expert Amy Park has explained, it is important to note that the FASB is not changing the categorization of crypto such as Bitcoin, which will still be considered as an intangible asset for GAAP purposes rather than a currency or other financial asset. However, they have changed the way that it is subsequently measured. Under the ASU, assets within the scope of the project are now measured at fair value instead of cost-less-impairment. In other words, financial reports should reflect the current market value of any Bitcoin rather than its historical low during the reporting period. Current market value is defined as the exit price (the price to sell that asset) in the principal market. What does this mean in practice? A key issue is how to define “principal market” in this context. The FASB voted not to provide specific guidance on this, and instead refers to existing guidance in ASC 820 on Fair Value Measurement. Those guidelines are written for a general rather than crypto-specific context. In effect, it is up to individual companies and their financial advisors how to identify the principal market. In a crypto context, there are some additional factors related to fair value measurements to consider. These include: Tax implications Recording the fair value of a company’s Bitcoin holdings in the profit and loss statement would fulfill accounting and audit requirements. But what about tax? As noted by Deloitte expert Rob Massey in a MicroStrategy World Tax and Accounting Panel, the rules on reporting for GAAP purposes do not always align with tax requirements. In the US, the IRS regards crypto assets such a Bitcoin as property. For most taxpayers, a capital gain or loss for tax purposes isn’t recorded until such time as Bitcoin is used or disposed of. This can result in a timing difference between GAAP and tax, which would generate a deferred tax asset or liability. Any deferred tax assets should then be evaluated for the need for a valuation allowance. The complexities of this are beyond the scope of this article, but it’s important to note that accurate recording and tracking of the cost basis of any amount of Bitcoin a company uses or holds is the key to fulfilling both accounting and tax requirements. Tracking the cost basis The more granular this information is, the more control the company has over which tranches of Bitcoin to dispose of and when, for maximum tax efficiency. This was the case under the cost-less-impairment model and will continue to be the case under the fair value model. The FASB noted in its exposure documents that “The Board decided not to provide specific guidance on how an entity should determine the cost basis of its crypto assets.” There are various methods for determining cost basis such as FIFO (first in, first out) LIFO (last in, first out) and specific identification. Under the new standards, whichever method a company uses, it will need to disclose it in financial statements. Further, there are separate considerations relevant for tracking cost basis and implementing a proper method for tax purposes. What other changes are included? 1) How to treat acquisition costs The FASB board also deliberated how companies should treat the costs of acquiring crypto assets. Such costs include Bitcoin mining fees (the commission paid…