1993 SNA Update Information - AEG recommendations for issue:
Оригиналы и копии | | Issue description | | Issue description in [English] | [French] | [Russian] | [Spanish] | | После того, как расходы на программное обеспечение стали рассматриваться в СНС 1993 года как накопление капитала, стало еще более очевидным отсутствие в СНС рекомендаций, касающихся учета оригиналов и копий, рассматриваемых в качестве разных продуктов. Следует ли расходы на оригиналы и копии отражать как расходы (на новые товары) на том основании, что оригиналы отличаются от копий, или же следует рассматривать оригиналы как аналогичные ''запасу'' копий, поскольку расходы на копии частично (или полностью) отражают продажу существующего товара? Как следует отражать в учете операции с копиями? |
|
| | AEG recommendations | | Number of AEG recommendations for selected issue: | 2 | | Corresponding meeting | Date posted | Recommendation |  | | July 2005 | 9/12/2005 | The AEG did not accept that annual licence fees for software without a long-term contract should be treated as fixed capital; the payments should be treated as rentals.
In general, software should be treated in a similar way to any other asset. As a result, a long-term lease of software can be treated as a financial lease.
If a large initial payment is followed by a series of smaller annual fees, the initial payment is treated as fixed capital formation and the annual fees as a service charge. | | December 2004 | 1/11/2005 | The AEG agreed that copies generated for issue under licenses to use represent new production.
The AEG agreed that when they display the characteristics of fixed assets, copies issued under license to use should be recorded as gross fixed capital formation.
The Canberra II group is asked to recommend in which cases when payments for a license to use are made over several years represent the acquisition of an asset rather than a series of payments for services and the consequence for recording other transactions.
When a license to reproduce is issued under terms similar to an operational lease, the payments made are treated as payments for services.
When the holder of an original divests itself of part or all of the responsibility to issue and service copies under licenses to use by means of a license to reproduce, this constitutes the sale of the corresponding part of the asset. Having two possible treatments for licenses to reproduce could affect the classification of assets (to be considered by Canberra II) and the borderline between goods and services in trade figures. This should be brought to the attention of BOPCOM.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
