Changes in Accounting Principle vs. Changes in Estimates

18.1 Changes in Accounting Principle vs. Changes in Estimates

In the course of preparing financial statements, organizations inevitably encounter circumstances that require adjusting their accounting methods. These adjustments might manifest as changes in an accounting principle—such as switching from the First-In-First-Out (FIFO) inventory costing method to the Weighted-Average method—or as changes in accounting estimates, such as revising the useful life of depreciable assets. Understanding how to distinguish between these two categories is essential not only for compliance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) but also for transparency, comparability, and consistency in financial reporting.

This section provides a comprehensive examination of changes in accounting principle and changes in estimates, guided by authoritative literature (primarily ASC 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections), and includes references to IFRS (IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors). We will explore definitional distinctions, real-world case scenarios, diagrams illustrating decision processes, and best practices to avoid common pitfalls. By the end, you will have a deeper understanding of how to apply these concepts when preparing or auditing financial statements.

Overview of Accounting Changes

Before narrowing in on specific changes, it is helpful to recognize the broader categories within ASC 250:

• Changes in Accounting Principle
• Changes in Accounting Estimate
• Changes in Reporting Entity
• Error Corrections

In this section, we focus on the first two: changes in accounting principle and changes in accounting estimate. Later aspects—such as error corrections—are covered in other parts of this chapter.

Defining a Change in Accounting Principle

A change in accounting principle occurs when a company adopts a generally accepted accounting principle different from the one it used previously. This can also apply when a company changes the method it uses to apply a particular principle. The most commonly cited examples include:

• Shifting from one inventory costing method to another (e.g., FIFO to Weighted-Average).
• Changing from a completed-contract method to a percentage-of-completion method for revenue recognition (if both are permitted in the given circumstances).
• Switching from one depreciation method to another (e.g., Straight-Line to Double-Declining Balance), if the new method is equally acceptable under U.S. GAAP.

Under ASC 250, a change in accounting principle should only occur when:

1. The adoption of a new principle is mandated by a newly issued accounting standard; or
2. The entity can demonstrate that the new principle is preferable to the existing principle, thereby producing financial statements that are more relevant and faithfully representational.

US GAAP Guidance

• Authoritative guidance: ASC 250-10, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.
• Companies must apply the new principle retrospectively by re-stating prior period financial statements as if the new principle always existed (unless it is impractical or a new standard mandates otherwise).

IFRS Guidance

• IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors offers a similar framework.
• IFRS also requires retrospective application for changes in accounting policy (i.e., principle) with a similar allowance for impracticality.

Common Example: Changing from FIFO to Weighted-Average

Suppose a manufacturing company previously used FIFO for inventory costing but decides to shift to Weighted-Average to better match the flow of materials. Under ASC 250, this qualifies as a change in accounting principle because both FIFO and Weighted-Average are acceptable under U.S. GAAP, but Weighted-Average is chosen as the more preferable costing method for this company’s specific circumstances. The company would generally restate prior years’ financial statements to reflect the inventory cost under Weighted-Average for comparability, unless it is impractical to do so.

Defining a Change in Accounting Estimate

A change in accounting estimate occurs when an organization revises an estimate to reflect new information or new developments. Because most accounting measurements depend, to some extent, on estimation, changes in these estimates are inevitable as more reliable evidence becomes available. Common examples include:

• Adjusting the allowance for uncollectible accounts based on new economic data.
• Revising the useful life or salvage value of depreciable assets, such as machinery or vehicles.
• Updating warranty liability estimates in light of new product defect rates.
• Revising the fair value estimates for intangible assets or financial instruments.

Because changes in estimated amounts are a normal part of the accounting process, these changes are accounted for in the period of change and in future periods if the change affects both. This approach is known as prospective application.

US GAAP Guidance

• Authoritative guidance: ASC 250-10 and related sections in other topics (e.g., ASC 360 for property, plant, and equipment).
• No retrospective restatement is required. The entity applies the revised estimate from the point of change onward.

IFRS Guidance

• Under IAS 8, changes in accounting estimates are recognized prospectively. The effect of a change in accounting estimate is included in profit or loss in:

1. The period of change if the change affects that period only, or
2. The period of change and future periods if the change also affects both.

Common Example: Revising Depreciable Life of an Asset

A company originally estimated that a machine would have a 10-year life with no salvage value. Due to more recent analyses and maintenance records, management concludes the machine is likely to remain economically useful for only seven years. The remaining unamortized cost is then depreciated over the new remaining life. Because this revision is based on new or additional information, it is considered a change in accounting estimate. The company applies the change on a prospective basis and does not restate prior financial statements.

Distinguishing Between a Change in Principle and a Change in Estimate

In practice, it may sometimes be challenging to distinguish between a change in accounting principle and a change in estimate. For instance, changing depreciation methods—from Straight-Line to Double-Declining Balance—could be viewed as either a change in principle or, in certain cases, a change in estimate related to the consumption pattern of future economic benefits. Under ASC 250, this type of change is usually treated as a change in accounting principle requiring retrospective application, unless the company can adequately demonstrate it is genuinely a revised estimate of how the asset’s benefits are consumed.

What if a Company “Discovers” New Information?

A helpful question is: Does the new information truly relate to a more accurate estimation that was unknowable before (thus a change in estimate), or is it a new theoretical or conceptual approach to measuring something that has not changed (thus a change in principle)? The latter typically triggers a change in principle, whereas the former triggers a change in estimate.

Implementation Flow

Below is a sample decision flowchart:

    flowchart TD
	    A[Identify the Nature of the Accounting Change] --> B{Is it a Change in Method?}
	    B -- Yes --> C[Potential Change in Principle <br/> (Retrospective)]
	    B -- No --> D{Is it a Revision of an Assumption?}
	    D -- Yes --> E[Change in Estimate <br/> (Prospective)]
	    D -- No --> F[Investigate if <br/> it's an Error Correction or <br/> Another Type of Change]

Accounting Treatment and Disclosures

Both changes in accounting principle and changes in estimate require robust disclosures to inform users of financial statements about the nature and impact of the change.

Changes in Accounting Principle Disclosures

1. Description of and justification for the newly adopted principle.
2. Method of applying the change (i.e., retrospective application or modified retrospective if required by a new accounting standard).
3. Description of the prior-period information that has been adjusted and the effect on the financial statements (e.g., net income, retained earnings).
4. If retrospective application is deemed impractical, a statement that explains why and how the new principle has been applied.

Changes in Accounting Estimate Disclosures

1. Description of the nature and reason for the change.
2. The effect of the change on current-period income from continuing operations, net income (or other important metrics), and per-share amounts.
3. If it is impossible to estimate the specific effect on future periods, disclose that fact.

Practical Examples

Example 1: Change from FIFO to Weighted-Average

• Company X had been using FIFO to measure inventory.
• During 20X2, Company X decides Weighted-Average would provide a more faithful representation of costs due to shifts in its supply chain and more frequent pricing fluctuations.
• This qualifies as a change in accounting principle. Company X must retrospectively adjust financial statements from prior years, recognizing any cumulative effect of the change in retained earnings at the beginning of the earliest period presented.
• Disclosure should explain why Weighted-Average is preferable and how the change impacts cost of goods sold (COGS) and inventory valuations.

Example 2: Reassessing Depreciable Life of Equipment

• Company Y purchased a piece of heavy machinery in 20X0, originally estimating its useful life at 10 years.
• By 20X3, new studies and usage logs indicated heavier wear and tear, thus reducing the machine’s remaining useful life by two years.
• This is a change in accounting estimate, accounted for prospectively. Company Y recalculates future depreciation based on the updated remaining life as of 20X3 without adjusting previous years’ statements.

Example 3: Switching Methods for a Software Asset

• Company Z initially decided to amortize capitalized internal-use software costs using the Straight-Line method over five years.
• As usage data accumulated, management concluded the software’s benefits are consumed more rapidly in the early years and decides to amortize using an Accelerated method.
• If Company Z justifies that the new pattern of benefits is a better reflection of how the asset is utilized, the manipulative factor diminishes, and this can be argued as a change in accounting estimate. However, if the shift is driven by management’s adoption of a new principle with no direct evidence of usage changes, it would be considered a change in principle, requiring retrospective application.

IFRS vs. U.S. GAAP

Under both ASC 250 (U.S. GAAP) and IAS 8 (IFRS), the definitions of changes in accounting principle and changes in estimates are broad and conceptually consistent. Both frameworks similarly require:

• Retrospective application for changes in principle (with exemptions for impracticality).
• Prospective application for changes in estimate.

However, slight variations in details and specific disclosures may apply under IFRS, particularly regarding terminology (where “accounting policies” is often used instead of “accounting principles”) and additional disclosures about impracticality. IFRS also tends to place more emphasis on management’s judgment and materiality in determining whether a change constitutes an error correction or a policy change.

Common Pitfalls and Best Practices

Because both categories (changes in accounting principle and changes in estimate) can occasionally overlap, pitfalls arise when an entity classifies a change incorrectly. Misclassifying a change in principle as an estimate—thereby avoiding retroactive adjustments—could lead to misleading financial statements.

Pitfalls

• Treating a preference-driven change (e.g., deciding Weighted-Average is simpler but calling it a “change in estimate”) incorrectly.
• Failing to disclose clear rationale for preferability.
• Using inadequate evidence for a revised estimate, potentially leading to errors or future restatements.
• Overlooking the effect on tax calculations and deferred tax balances.

Best Practices

• Develop clear documentation explaining the nature and justification for each change.
• Closely review prior period statements to ensure consistent implementation of retrospective adjustments.
• Perform sensitivity analyses to demonstrate how the new approach is preferable or how the new estimate is most appropriate.
• Include robust disclosures regarding the effect of the change on key metrics over multiple periods.

Case Study: Hybrid Scenario

Imagine a technology hardware company that decides to reclassify certain intangible assets and simultaneously changes the method of measuring the related depreciation expenses. The intangible assets had been categorized under a single product line but are now segmented based on new usage data. Meanwhile, the company also changes from Straight-Line to Units-of-Production depreciation for related assets.

• If the decision to segment intangible assets stems from an accounting policy approach—classifying intangible assets in a more granular manner—this is likely a change in principle.
• If the switch in the depreciation method is directly tied to revised data regarding when and how the economic benefits are consumed (e.g., based on usage patterns during production cycles), that portion is arguably a change in estimate.
• The company must carefully analyze each element of the change to determine whether retrospective or prospective treatment is appropriate.

Diagram: Determining the Classification

The decision tree can grow complex. Below is a more detailed Mermaid diagram showing a branching approach:

    flowchart TD
	    A((Start)) --> B[Identify if the old and new methods both comply with GAAP]
	    B --> C{Yes?}
	    C -- Yes --> D[Is the change <br/> a new way of applying <br/> a recognized principle?]
	    C -- No --> E[Error Correction <br/> or possibly <br/> a non-GAAP method used previously]
	    D -- Yes --> F[Change in Accounting Principle <br/> (Retrospective Application)]
	    D -- No --> G[Change in Estimate <br/> (Prospective Application)]
	    E --> H[Re-assess previous approach <br/> for compliance and error correction]

This more granular perspective helps accountants navigate potential gray areas between principle changes, estimate changes, and error corrections.

Strategies for Successful Implementation

• Encourage cross-functional collaboration: Work with operations, sales, and financial planning teams for accurate data to support any revised estimate or principle.
• Maintain professional skepticism: Particularly for auditors, ensure robust and verifiable support documents the preferability of a new principle or the basis for a revised estimate.
• Plan for resource allocation: Retrospective application sometimes involves analyzing historical data, re-computing critical balances, and clarifying notes. Allocate sufficient time and effort.

References for Further Exploration

• FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 250: “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.”
• IAS 8: “Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors.”
• Publications by AICPA and major accounting firms on distinguishing between principle and estimate changes.
• Internal company policy manuals (if existing) for additional specificity around standardizing accounting practice.

Quiz: Changes in Accounting Principle vs. Estimates

For Additional Practice and Deeper Preparation

FAR CPA Hardest Mock Exams: In-Depth & Clear Explanations

Financial Accounting and Reporting (FAR) CPA Mocks: 6 Full (1,500 Qs), Harder Than Real! In-Depth & Clear. Crush With Confidence!

• Tackle full-length mock exams designed to mirror real FAR questions.
• Refine your exam-day strategies with detailed, step-by-step solutions for every scenario.
• Explore in-depth rationales that reinforce higher-level concepts, giving you an edge on test day.
• Boost confidence and minimize anxiety by mastering every corner of the FAR blueprint.
• Perfect for those seeking exceptionally hard mocks and real-world readiness.

Disclaimer: This course is not endorsed by or affiliated with the AICPA, NASBA, or any official CPA Examination authority. All content is for educational and preparatory purposes only.