IFRS 15 *Revenue from Contracts with Customers* and ASC 606 (the US GAAP equivalent) were jointly developed by the IASB and FASB, sharing an identical five-step model. Despite this common foundation, several practical differences exist that can lead to divergent outcomes in financial statements.

---

Core Five-Step Model — Shared Framework

Both standards require the same approach:

• Identify the contract with a customer
• Identify the performance obligations
• Determine the transaction price
• Allocate the transaction price
• Recognise revenue when (or as) performance obligations are satisfied (IFRS 15.31–38 / ASC 606-10-25-23)

---

Key Differences

1. Licences of Intellectual Property

Under IFRS 15.B58–B62, a licence is either *right to access* (recognised over time) or *right to use* (recognised at a point in time), assessed based on whether the entity's activities significantly affect the IP. ASC 606 provides more detailed implementation guidance and an additional category for *sales-based and usage-based royalties*, which is broadly similar but interpreted with more specific industry guidance under US GAAP.

2. Principal vs. Agent Considerations

Both frameworks share the same indicators, but the FASB codification (ASC 606-10-55-36 to 55-40) includes more illustrative examples than IFRS 15.B34–B38, sometimes leading to different conclusions in practice for the same arrangement—particularly in online platforms and distribution arrangements.

3. Sales with a Right of Return

Both standards address this similarly (IFRS 15.B20–B27), but US GAAP retains more industry-specific legacy guidance in certain sectors (e.g., software, entertainment), whereas IFRS 15 fully replaced all prior revenue standards, creating a more uniform treatment.

4. Contract Modifications

The underlying principles are identical (IFRS 15.18–21 / ASC 606-10-25-10 to 25-13), but the FASB's Transition Resource Group (TRG) issued additional interpretive guidance on modifications that has no direct IFRS equivalent, potentially resulting in different application.

5. Practical Expedients — Availability Differs

Several practical expedients are available under both standards, but IFRS 15 and ASC 606 do not always offer the same options:

• The *portfolio approach* is explicitly permitted under ASC 606-10-10-4 as a practical expedient; IFRS 15.4 allows it only where results would not differ materially.
• The *shipping and handling* practical expedient (ASC 606-10-25-18B) allowing treatment as a fulfilment activity is available only under US GAAP, not IFRS 15.

IFRS 15 disclosures (IFRS 15.110–129) and ASC 606 disclosures are substantially similar for public entities. However, ASC 606 provides a *reduced disclosure package* for non-public entities, while IFRS 15 applies uniformly to all entities within its scope regardless of public/private status.

7. Presentation of Contract Assets and Liabilities

Both require balance sheet presentation of contract assets and liabilities (IFRS 15.105–107), but there is no requirement under IFRS 15 to use the specific terminology "contract asset" or "contract liability" — entities may use descriptions that are meaningful. ASC 606 encourages but does not strictly mandate the labels either.

---

Practical Implication

For multinational companies reporting under both frameworks, these differences require careful dual-reporting analysis, particularly around licences, agent/principal assessments, and disclosure level for non-public subsidiaries.