At least one change (the elimination of permanently and temporarily restricted) is good.

http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C ... aimer=true

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cfodirect/asse ... hanges.pdf

The reporting of Restricted Funds is certainly going to complicate things, because they are combining two very different things: Endowments and (donor temporarily) Restricted Funds. RF's you can and should spend on projects; endowments you can't and shouldn't. I think I'm going to format like this:

1 Unrestricted cash
2 Board Designated funds
3 Restricted Funds
4 Endowment
5 Fixed assets and other untouchables

And I'm going to go right ahead and block them in the triplet they're trying to get away from: 1 cash, 2-3 project money, and 4-5 unspendable money. With 3-4 noted as "restricted by UPMIFA".

My audience is business decision makers not accountants. They are not indoctrinated into the accountant's way of thinking, nor is that likely to happen.

Thanks for posting -- note that the first link is over 200 pages long, the second orders of magnitude smaller.

It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) IRS implements for 990s and when they do so.

As far as I can tell only the reporting requirements for balance sheet statements are being changed.... donor restrictions -- -including permanent ones -- will still have to be tracked.

Bob H

And you still need to report it because (donor, "temporarily") Restricted Funds still exist, and stakeholders still need to know how much cash is available to fund running gear repair for Old 97 in RF-97. You still can't clump that in with RF-22 Carhouse 2 funds or the endowment.

What worries me is that dunce at a nonprofit may read this and think it means he can... Such interpretations often come with a sophomoric certainty (which is wrong).

Restricted funds are defined by state law, so there's no question they don't change.

"The reporting of Restricted Funds is certainly going to complicate things, because they are combining two very different things: Endowments and (donor temporarily) Restricted Funds. RF's you can and should spend on projects; endowments you can't and shouldn't. I think I'm going to format like this:

1 Unrestricted cash
2 Board Designated funds
3 Restricted Funds
4 Endowment
5 Fixed assets and other untouchables"


I'm sorry, but this very, very confused. Cash is a type of asset,but is not qualified as "restricted" or "non restricted". Board designated funds are just that, and have nothing to do with donor imposed restrictions. Endowments are generally now "permanent restricted funds", they will now just be "restricted". The term "fixed assets" has nothing to do with any restrictions on use, but the expected life of the asset and whether or not it exceeds a certain cost threshold if it exceed the threshold cost and is expected to last more than a year, it is a "fixed" or "capital" asset, subject to depreciation, or expensing over multiple years. Pencils are not fixed assets, cars are fixed assets.

For profit enterprises, tax-exempts and governments all have fixed assets, but this ASU only covers tax exempts. Governments can't even be affected by FASB. Having just directed an enterprise wide inventory of my employer's fixed assets, and being the author of it's fixed asset policy-I can assure you, the vehicles, machinery and computer systems that figure prominently in our ledgers, they are very "touchable" in every possible context of the word.


And I'm going to go right ahead and block them in the triplet they're trying to get away from: 1 cash, 2-3 project money, and 4-5 unspendable money. With 3-4 noted as "restricted by UPMIFA".

UPMIFA, or the Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act is a model state law that governs the conduct of organizations, but has nothing to do with the requirements that govern the presentation of financial statements. You can block in triplicate all you want, but if you want a clean audit opinion, you'll do it the prescribed way. This isn't mixing apples and oranges, it's telling us about the sound of the color blue.


My audience is business decision makers not accountants. They are not indoctrinated into the accountant's way of thinking, nor is that likely to happen.

There is a time to have an audience, and a time to be in the audience. Based upon the content of this and prior posts, as well as the spurious frustration with accounting conventions you neither grasp or respect, I think you should take your seat and stop interrupting the class.

"Do you hear yourself when you talk?"

-Owen Grady