Skip to main content
Sign in Create a free account
Varsity Tutors
Sign in

Account For Contract Modifications - CPA Far

  1. A retailer has a contract to sell a customer 1,000 units over 12 months at $50 per unit. After 4 months (400 units delivered), the parties agree to reduce the price to $45 per unit for the remaining 600 units. The goods are distinct from those already delivered. What is the updated transaction price to be recognized prospectively?
    Answer: $27,000 The modification reduces the price for the remaining 600 units to $45 each. Because the remaining goods are distinct from those already delivered, prospective treatment applies. Remaining transaction price = 600 x $45 = $27,000, recognized over the remaining 600 deliveries. Revenue already recognized on the 400 delivered units ($20,000) is not restated. Answer D is correct. Answer A uses the original price of $50 for all remaining units ($50 x 1,000 = $50,000), ignoring the modification entirely. Answer B applies the new price retroactively to all 1,000 units ($45 x 1,000 = $45,000), which would be a cumulative catch-up approach rather than prospective treatment. Answer C applies the original price to the remaining 600 units ($50 x 600 = $30,000), failing to apply the modified rate.
  2. Under ASC 606, which of the following is a valid contract modification even if not formally documented?
    Answer: An oral agreement between the parties that changes the scope or price, consistent with the entity's customary business practices. ASC 606-10-25-11 states that a contract modification exists when both parties have approved the change to scope or price, and approval may occur through written, oral, or other means consistent with customary practices. An oral agreement mutually accepted by both parties qualifies. Answer A is correct. Answer B is a unilateral seller action without customer consent - no modification exists. Answer C has not been acknowledged by the seller - only one party has communicated. Answer D is an external market change, not a contract modification.
  3. A company has a contract to deliver 100 units at $10 each ($1,000 total). After delivering 40 units, the customer requests 20 additional units at $9 each. The $9 price does not reflect the standalone selling price of $10. The remaining goods are not distinct from those already delivered. How should this modification be accounted for?
    Answer: As a termination of the original contract and creation of a new contract, with revenue recognized on a cumulative catch-up basis. When remaining goods are not distinct from those already transferred, the modification is treated as if the original contract were terminated and a new contract created. Revenue is adjusted on a cumulative catch-up basis reflecting the new blended price over all remaining units. Answer B is correct. Answer A requires the modification to meet separate contract criteria (distinct goods at standalone price), which is not met here. Answer C describes prospective treatment, which applies when remaining goods are distinct but do not meet the separate contract criteria. Answer D has no basis in ASC 606.
  4. A homebuilder has a contract to build a custom home for $400,000. After completing 50% of the construction, the customer requests upgraded flooring that adds $15,000 to the contract price. The $15,000 reflects the standalone cost and margin for the upgrade. The upgrade is not separable from the overall construction. How should the modification be accounted for?
    Answer: Using a cumulative catch-up adjustment, since the flooring is part of one combined performance obligation. A custom home is typically a single performance obligation measured over time. Since the flooring upgrade is not distinct from the overall construction (it is part of the single combined obligation), the modification is accounted for using a cumulative catch-up adjustment. The total transaction price increases to $415,000 and the percentage of completion is remeasured, with an immediate catch-up to revenue recognized to date. Answer D is correct. Answer A requires distinct goods at standalone price. Answer B applies prospective treatment for distinct remaining goods. Answer C incorrectly dismisses the modification.
  5. ConsultPro has a $1,200,000 contract to provide implementation consulting services over 18 months. After 12 months, when $800,000 of revenue has been recognized, the customer requests additional consulting hours that will extend the project by 6 months. The modification adds $300,000 to the contract value. However, ConsultPro determines that if they were to price these additional hours as a standalone service today, they would charge $450,000 due to increased market rates and the specialized nature of the extended work. What is the correct accounting treatment?
    Answer: Use the prospective method to adjust the remaining contract value, allocating the additional $300,000 over the extended performance period along with remaining original obligations When you encounter contract modifications under ASC 606, you need to determine whether the additional goods or services are distinct and priced at standalone selling price. If both conditions are met, treat it as a separate contract. If not, use the prospective method to adjust the existing contract. Here, while the additional consulting hours may be distinct services, they're not priced at standalone selling price. ConsultPro would charge $450,000 for these services if sold separately, but the modification only adds $300,000. Since the modification fails the standalone selling price test, you cannot treat this as a separate contract. Instead, you must use the prospective method. This means treating the modification as if it were part of the original contract from inception. You'll allocate the additional $300,000 over the remaining performance obligations along with any unrecognized revenue from the original contract. The total remaining contract value becomes the basis for future revenue recognition over the extended timeline. Option A is incorrect because contract termination isn't appropriate when services continue under modified terms. Option B fails because the $300,000 modification price doesn't equal the $450,000 standalone selling price required for separate contract treatment. Option C incorrectly suggests recognizing an immediate loss - the difference between modification and standalone prices doesn't create a loss under ASC 606. Remember this key test: contract modifications become separate contracts only when services are distinct AND priced at standalone value. If either condition fails, use prospective accounting to blend the modification into the existing contract structure.
  6. A contract modification reduces the scope of a contract and reduces the transaction price. The remaining goods are distinct. Under ASC 606, how is this modification accounted for?
    Answer: Prospectively: the remaining transaction price is updated and allocated to remaining performance obligations. When a modification reduces scope and price and the remaining goods are distinct (but the modification does not meet the criteria for a separate contract), it is accounted for prospectively. The remaining transaction price is adjusted and allocated to the remaining performance obligations on a going-forward basis. Answer B is correct. Answer A retroactively reverses previously recognized revenue, which is not required for this type of modification. Answer C (separate contract) requires distinct goods at standalone selling price - a price reduction is unlikely to meet this. Answer D ignores the modification entirely.
  7. The modified machines are not distinct from the original machines as they serve the same function for the customer and are part of the same integrated manufacturing line. The standalone selling price for machines with the new specifications is $62,000 each. Which method should Manufacturing Solutions use to account for this contract modification?
    Answer: Cumulative catch-up method: adjust the total contract price to $54,800,000 and recognize the adjustment immediately since 40% of the contract is complete Since the modified machines are not distinct from the original contract (they're part of the same integrated manufacturing line), this modification should be accounted for as if it were part of the original contract from inception (cumulative catch-up method). The total contract value becomes $54,800,000 (400 × $50,000 + 600 × $58,000). With 40% complete, revenue should be adjusted to reflect the new total contract value. Choice A incorrectly uses prospective treatment for non-distinct modifications. Choice B incorrectly treats non-distinct goods as a separate contract. Choice D is not a recognized method under ASC 606 for contract modifications.
  8. Under ASC 606, which of the following best describes a 'cumulative catch-up adjustment' in the context of contract modifications?
    Answer: An adjustment to revenue in the current period to reflect the effect of the modification as if it had been in place from contract inception. A cumulative catch-up adjustment under ASC 606 recognizes in the current period any revenue that would have been recognized under the modified terms from the beginning of the contract. It is neither a restatement of prior periods nor a purely prospective change - it corrects the cumulative revenue recognized to date in the current period. Answer C is correct. Answer A describes prospective-only treatment. Answer B describes prior period restatement, which ASC 606 does not prescribe for modifications. Answer D describes loss contract accounting, not a modification catch-up.
  9. A contract modification results in both a scope increase and a price increase. The additional goods are distinct, but the price increase is $500 above the standalone selling price of $400. Under ASC 606, how should this modification be accounted for?
    Answer: Not as a separate contract; the price exceeds standalone selling price, so it must be evaluated as a prospective or catch-up modification. The separate contract criteria require the price increase to reflect - not merely exceed - the standalone selling price. A price above standalone selling price means the criteria are not met in the same way as a price below it; the price must equal the standalone selling price to qualify. Under ASC 606, the modification would be evaluated under the prospective or cumulative catch-up methods depending on whether remaining goods are distinct. Answer B is correct. Answers A and C incorrectly conclude a separate contract exists when the price exceeds standalone. Answer D has no basis in ASC 606.
  10. Which of the following correctly describes the accounting for a claim - an amount above the contract price that a contractor seeks to collect from a customer for costs not included in the original contract?
    Answer: Claims are recognized as variable consideration to the extent it is probable a significant revenue reversal will not occur. Under ASC 606, a claim represents variable consideration. Revenue from a claim is recognized only to the extent it is probable that a significant revenue reversal will not occur when the uncertainty is resolved. This constraint on variable consideration governs claim recognition. Answer C is correct. Answer A recognizes revenue on submission without regard to probability - this is the old percentage-of-completion approach to claims. Answer B expenses the costs but provides no revenue recognition guidance. Answer D (cash basis) is inconsistent with accrual accounting under ASC 606.
  11. A contract modification is approved verbally but not yet in writing. Under ASC 606, how should the company treat this modification?
    Answer: Apply the modification if it meets the definition of a contract modification under ASC 606, regardless of written form, as long as both parties have approved it. ASC 606 defines a contract modification as a change in the scope or price of a contract that is approved by the parties. Approval may be written, oral, or implied by customary business practices - there is no requirement for written approval. If both parties have agreed to the modification, it is accounted for under ASC 606 regardless of documentation form. Answer C is correct. Answers A and D condition recognition on written approval, which is not required. Answer B treats the modification as a contingency, which is inappropriate when both parties have agreed.
  12. A software company has a contract to provide a license and one year of support for $12,000. After 6 months, the customer requests an additional year of support at $4,800. The standalone selling price for one year of support is $6,000. How should this modification be classified?
    Answer: Not as a separate contract, because the price of $4,800 does not reflect the standalone selling price of $6,000. For a modification to be treated as a separate contract, the price increase must reflect the standalone selling price of the additional goods or services. The additional support is priced at $4,800, but the standalone selling price is $6,000. Because the price does not reflect the standalone selling price, the modification does not qualify as a separate contract. Answer B is correct. Answer A incorrectly concludes the modification is a separate contract despite the price discrepancy - both conditions (distinct service AND standalone price) must be met. Answer C describes a retroactive restatement approach, which is not prescribed by ASC 606 for contract modifications. Answer D describes a cumulative catch-up adjustment, which would apply only if the remaining services were not distinct from those already transferred.
  13. Under ASC 606, a contract modification is treated as a separate contract when which of the following conditions are both met?
    Answer: The modification adds distinct promised goods or services, and the price increases by an amount that reflects the standalone selling price of those goods or services. Under ASC 606-10-25-12, a modification is treated as a separate contract only when (1) the additional goods or services are distinct, and (2) the price increase reflects the standalone selling price of those additional goods or services. Answer A is correct. Answer B describes procedural agreement, not the accounting criteria. Answer C describes conditions that might trigger modification accounting but not the criteria for a separate contract. Answer D introduces a time threshold that does not exist in ASC 606.
  14. A construction company has a $2,000,000 fixed-price contract. At year-end, 60% of the work is complete. The parties agree to remove $200,000 of distinct, unperformed work from the scope, reducing the contract price by $200,000. What is the remaining transaction price to be recognized in future periods?
    Answer: $600,000 Revenue recognized to date = $2,000,000 x 60% = $1,200,000. The modification removes $200,000 of distinct unperformed work and reduces the price by $200,000 (prospective treatment). Updated total contract price = $2,000,000 - $200,000 = $1,800,000. Remaining revenue = $1,800,000 - $1,200,000 = $600,000. Answer D is correct. Answer A uses the original contract price. Answer B is revenue already recognized. Answer C is the original remaining revenue before the scope reduction ($2,000,000 x 40%).
  15. A modification adds new goods to an existing contract, but the price of the new goods is below their standalone selling price. The new goods are distinct from those already delivered. Under ASC 606, how is this modification treated?
    Answer: Prospectively, as a termination of the existing contract and creation of a new contract going forward. When a modification adds distinct goods or services but the price does not reflect the standalone selling price, the separate contract criteria are not met. Because the remaining goods are distinct from those already delivered, the modification is accounted for prospectively - as if the original contract were terminated and replaced by a new one. Answer D is correct. Answer A requires both conditions (distinct + standalone price), which is not met. Answer B (cumulative catch-up) applies when goods are not distinct. Answer C has no basis in ASC 606.
  16. Which of the following is the correct order of analysis when a contract modification is identified under ASC 606?
    Answer: Determine if the modification qualifies as a separate contract; if not, assess whether remaining goods are distinct to determine prospective or catch-up treatment. The correct ASC 606 modification analysis sequence is: (1) Is the modification a separate contract? (both conditions met - distinct goods and standalone price). If yes, account for it separately. If no: (2) Are the remaining goods distinct from those already transferred? If yes, prospective treatment. If no, cumulative catch-up. Answer D correctly describes this decision tree. Answer A starts with transaction price before the classification decision. Answer B introduces 'change order' terminology that is not the primary classification framework. Answer C starts with performance obligation satisfaction rather than modification type.
  17. A company agrees to sell 200 widgets at $15 each. After delivering 80 widgets, the customer requests 50 additional widgets. The standalone selling price is $15 per widget, and the modification price is $15 per widget. How should this modification be treated?
    Answer: As a separate contract, since the additional widgets are distinct and priced at standalone selling price. The additional 50 widgets are distinct (each widget is separately usable) and the price of $15 per widget reflects the standalone selling price. Both criteria for separate contract treatment under ASC 606-10-25-12 are met. Answer B is correct. Answer A applies prospective treatment, which is used when goods are distinct but the price does not reflect the standalone selling price - that condition is not present here. Answer C (cumulative catch-up) applies when goods are not distinct from those already transferred. Answer D incorrectly terminates the original contract rather than treating the modification as a new, separate contract alongside the existing one.
  18. DevCorp has a $3,600,000 contract to develop custom software over 36 months, with revenue recognized over time. After 18 months, when $1,800,000 of revenue has been recognized, the customer requests significant changes to the software functionality. The modification will require an additional 12 months and $1,800,000 in fees. However, if DevCorp were to develop software with these enhanced features as a standalone product today, they would charge $2,400,000. The enhanced software is considered distinct from the original software due to its different functionality and separate utility. What is the impact on revenue recognition in the period the modification is approved?
    Answer: Recognize no additional revenue in the current period; defer the $1,800,000 and recognize it over the additional 12-month performance period Although the enhanced software features are distinct from the original software, the modification pricing ($1,800,000) does not reflect the standalone selling price ($2,400,000). Under ASC 606, when additional distinct goods/services are not priced at standalone selling price, the modification should be accounted for prospectively rather than as a separate contract. The $1,800,000 should be deferred and recognized as the enhanced software is developed over the additional 12-month period. Choice A incorrectly treats this as immediate revenue. Choice C incorrectly calculates a partial recognition. Choice D incorrectly applies cumulative catch-up method to distinct services not priced at standalone value.
  19. Which of the following best describes the standalone selling price as used in contract modification analysis under ASC 606?
    Answer: The price at which the entity would sell a promised good or service separately to a customer. Under ASC 606-10-32-32, the standalone selling price is the price at which an entity would sell a promised good or service separately to a customer. It is the best evidence of standalone selling price when the good or service is actually sold separately. Answer C is correct. Answer A (catalog list price) may be used as an input but is not the definition. Answer B introduces creditworthiness criteria that do not exist in the standard. Answer D uses a historical average, which is not the prescribed definition.
  20. Company A has a long-term construction contract originally priced at $500,000. After completing 30% of the work, the parties agree to add scope that increases the contract price by $80,000, which reflects the standalone value of the additional work. The additional work is distinct. How should the modification be treated?
    Answer: As a separate contract; revenue on the additional scope is recognized separately as it is earned. The modification adds distinct work and the price increase reflects the standalone selling price of the additional scope. Both criteria for a separate contract under ASC 606-10-25-12 are met. The modification is treated as a separate contract and revenue is recognized independently on the added scope. Answer A is correct. Answers B and C describe alternative modification treatments that apply only when the separate contract criteria are not met. Answer D incorrectly terminates the original contract.

Start this quiz