Software development cost accounting for SaaS, cloud, and on-premise solutions | Deloitte US has been saved
By Sandie Kim, Senior Consultation Partner, National Office for Accounting and Reporting Services, and US Audit & Assurance Technology Industry Professional Practice Director (IPPD), Deloitte & Touche LLP
Talking points
- Which accounting guidance should you use—ASC 985-20 or ASC 350-40—to capitalize software development costs for SaaS, cloud, and on-premise solutions?
- The rise of generative AI software raises new questions about software development cost accounting for SaaS, cloud, and on-premise solutions.
- Deloitte can help you navigate continuous changes in the fast-moving technology, media, and telecommunications industries.
Artificial intelligence (AI) software has finally entered the mainstream. Generative AI tools, which use machine learning algorithms and input training, have matured to the point where they can now create text, images, videos, and computer code at a level approaching humans. Not surprisingly, the number of tech companies using AI software in their products is on the rise.
Like SaaS, cloud solutions, and other software advances, AI tools have development costs that must be accounted for correctly. In light of continuous software innovation, it is essential to keep pace with the relevant software cost accounting guidance and understand which of two applicable accounting standards—ASC 985-20 or ASC 350-40—applies in each situation. Determining which rule to use is a critical first step because the requirements for capitalization vary significantly between the two standards.
ASC 985-20, known as the software capitalization rule for external-use software, applies to software that an entity—typically a developer—intends to sell, lease, or market externally. “Externally,” in this case, means the software is used on-premise or “on-prem” by the customer.
ASC 350-40, on the other hand, governs software that an entity does not intend to sell, lease, or market externally, but rather will use internally. This standard is commonly referred to as the software capitalization rule for internal-use software because the entity develops software for its own internal use, sells subscriptions to software accessed by customers via the cloud or as SaaS, or purchases a cloud-based or SaaS hosting arrangement.
Understanding the differences
A key difference between ASC 985-20 and 350-40 is whether the customer can take possession of the software. With ASC 985-20, the software runs on the customer’s on-premise infrastructure (or the customer’s cloud vendor’s infrastructure). With ASC 350-40, it runs on the entity’s own internal infrastructure (or the entity’s cloud vendor’s infrastructure) where it can be accessed online by subscribing customers as SaaS or cloud solutions or used internally by the entity.
Another key difference is that ASC 985-20 requires the establishment of technological feasibility before software costs can be capitalized. Because technological feasibility is often established shortly before the software product reaches the GA stage, many entities do not have material costs capitalized under ASC 985-20.
Conversely, ASC 350-40 does not require the establishment of technological feasibility for capitalization. Instead, it says that capitalization depends on the software solution’s stage of development. Generally, certain development costs incurred during the application development stage are capitalized, while costs incurred outside that stage are expensed.
Having a single model that results in more capitalized costs is incredibly unpopular with many that want a dual model. Many would prefer to expense everything if the software is being sold, whether it’s sold on-prem or as SaaS, while software costs are capitalized for those that are truly for internal use only—like ERP systems.
— Sandie Kim
Impending FASB rule changes
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) recently decided to add a project to change these software development cost accounting rules. The Board reached a preliminary decision to move to a single model, which would likely be more similar to ASC 350-40 than ASC 985-20.
Having a single model that results in more capitalized costs is incredibly unpopular with many that want a dual model. They would prefer to expense everything if the software is being sold, whether it’s sold on-prem or as SaaS, while software costs are capitalized for those that are truly for internal use only—like ERP systems.
The FASB reasoned that with a dual-model approach, it would be difficult to determine which types of software projects should be expensed versus capitalized, and using a single model is preferable. The potential rule changes are still in the early stages, and it’s possible that things may change.
How Deloitte can help
Entities are increasingly incurring software development costs, whether it’s to incorporate emerging technologies like AI or Internet of Things (IoT) into their offerings or to implement and deploy a finance transformation project. Deloitte can help you stay abreast of these changes, respond to continuous developments in the technology industry, and assist with navigating the appropriate accounting guidance.
For more information on software development cost accounting, replay our Dbriefs webcast or contact Sandie Kim.
Get in touch
Sandie Kim
US Audit & Assurance Tech Industry Professional Practice Director (IPPD) | Deloitte & Touche LLP
Sandie is a senior consultation partner in the Professional Practice Group of Deloitte & Touche LLP's National Office. She provides consultations to clients and audit practitioners on complex financial accounting and reporting issues, primarily in areas related to revenue recognition, business combinations, long-lived assets, stock-based compensation, and other employee benefits. She also serves as the lead partner for the National Office revenue recognition team. Further, with more than 20 years of experience serving technology clients, she is the Technology Industry Professional Practice Director. Previously, Sandie was a Professional Accounting Fellow in the Office of the Chief Accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 2006 to 2008. Her responsibilities at the Commission included following the activities of various accounting standard-setting bodies both within the United States and internationally, consulting with registrants on accounting and reporting matters, and participating in the development of the Commission’s and other standard-setting bodies’ rule proposals.
