FAR · Select balance sheet accounts · 6 practice questions
CECL for Trade Receivables: Allowance and Write-Offs
A CECL allowance records lifetime expected losses at initial recognition; writing off an already estimated loss creates no new expense. Below, follow the recognition, measurement, and write-off steps for a trade receivable.
Try one first
Hint
Focus on whether current GAAP waits for a bad event to happen before recording credit-loss exposure.
Answer B. Under ASC 326's expected credit loss model, an entity estimates and recognizes expected lifetime credit losses when a financial asset is first recognized. For a trade receivable, the allowance is recorded at origination; subsequent changes in expected collectibility are reflected by adjusting the allowance.
Why not A: This is tempting because aging schedules are commonly used to estimate collectibility, but aging is a measurement tool, not the recognition trigger. GAAP requires expected credit losses to be recognized at initial recognition rather than waiting until the receivable is past due.
Why not C: This reflects the older incurred-loss approach, which waited for evidence of impairment. ASC 326 requires recognition based on expected losses up front, not only after a specific adverse event is identified.
Why not D: This confuses write-offs with the allowance recognition. A write-off removes a specific receivable and reduces the allowance, but the allowance itself should have been recorded earlier based on expected credit losses.
Step by step
- Identify the recognition date
For an amortized-cost trade receivable under CECL, recognize an allowance when the receivable is first recorded. No delinquency or specific loss event is required.
- Estimate lifetime credit losses
Start with historical loss experience. Adjust it for current conditions and reasonable, supportable forecasts over the receivable's remaining life.
- Record the allowance estimate
Debit credit loss expense and credit the allowance for credit losses. This estimate reduces net receivables but leaves the customer's gross balance on the books.
- Update each reporting date
Remeasure the allowance for current expected lifetime losses. The required ending allowance is the target balance, not necessarily the amount of new expense.
- Identify the uncollectible account
Holt concludes that its $12,000 customer balance is uncollectible and expects no recovery. The loss was included in its earlier allowance estimate, so write off the specific account now.
- Record the write-off
Debit the allowance for credit losses and credit accounts receivable for $12,000. Do not debit credit loss expense again.
- Check the net effect
Gross receivables fall $12,000, and the allowance falls $12,000: net receivables do not change. Total assets and current-period expense also do not change from this write-off.
Key points
- Remember: Estimating the loss creates expense; writing off the already estimated loss uses the allowance.
- Aging helps measure expected losses. It does not trigger allowance recognition.
- CECL uses lifetime expected losses from the start, not an initial 12-month loss allowance.
How the exam traps you
- Waiting for delinquency, bankruptcy, or a specific default before recording an allowance. Recognize the allowance when the receivable is first recorded, based on expected lifetime losses.
- Debiting bad debt expense again when writing off an already estimated loss. Debit the allowance and credit accounts receivable. Both balances decrease equally.
- Using historical loss rates without adjusting for weaker collections ahead. Adjust historical experience for current conditions and reasonable, supportable forecasts.
Question 2
Hint
Focus on what U.S. GAAP requires to be estimated for trade receivables at the balance sheet date, not on whether specific accounts have already failed.
Answer D. Under ASC 326 (the current CECL model), entities must estimate and record an allowance for expected credit losses on trade receivables at the balance sheet date. The governing factor is the amount of expected lifetime credit losses, measured using historical loss experience adjusted for current conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts. Thus, Jace should record an allowance for the expected uncollectible portion at December 31 even though balances are not yet past due and none have been written off.
Why not A: Tempting because a write-off is clear proof an account is uncollectible; however, relying on write-offs would postpone recognition of expected losses. ASC 326 requires recognizing expected credit losses before accounts are specifically written off.
Why not B: Tempting because delinquency is an obvious indicator of credit risk; however, past-due status is only one input. The standard requires estimating expected lifetime losses using all available information, so receivables not yet past due can still require an allowance.
Why not C: Tempting because management's customer-retention plans may affect future cash flows; however, allowance measurement depends on expected collectibility of receivables, not on business strategy or intent. Management intent does not substitute for an estimate of expected credit losses.
Question 3
Hint
Separate the allowance estimate from the later removal of one specific customer's balance.
Answer A. Under the allowance method, entities estimate expected credit losses and record an allowance in advance, but do not remove a specific customer's receivable until that account is identified as uncollectible. Here, Baird determined on February 10, Year 2 that Customer K's balance would not be collected, so that is the date to write off the account. The December 31 allowance entry merely adjusts the allowance and bad debt expense; it does not itself remove the receivable.
Why not B: Estimating expected credit losses affects the allowance and bad debt expense but does not remove a specific customer's receivable. The write-off occurs later when that particular account is judged uncollectible.
Why not C: This confuses initial recognition with write-off. A receivable is recorded when earned; it is not written off at initial recognition simply because collectibility is uncertain.
Why not D: Waiting for final legal resolution is not required under GAAP if the entity has already determined the account is uncollectible; requiring court confirmation would unnecessarily delay recognition of the write-off.
Question 4
Hint
Focus on CECL (ASC 326) timing: decide whether expected credit losses for amortized-cost receivables are recognized at initial recognition and whether a 12-month exception applies.
Answer C. ASC 326 (CECL) requires entities to recognize expected credit losses for financial assets measured at amortized cost at initial recognition. For trade receivables that do not have a significant financing component, that means recording lifetime expected credit losses when the receivable is recognized and remeasuring the allowance each reporting period for changes in forecasts and conditions.
Why not A: This distractor is plausible because some frameworks use a 12-month vs. lifetime distinction for expected-loss measurement. It fails here because ASC 326 requires lifetime expected credit losses for financial assets measured at amortized cost (such as typical trade receivables without significant financing components) at initial recognition, not a 12-month-only allowance.
Why not B: This is tempting because it describes the older incurred-loss approach, waiting for objective evidence or delinquency before recognizing losses. It is incorrect under ASC 326, which requires recognition of expected credit losses at initial recognition rather than waiting for specific accounts to become delinquent.
Why not D: This may tempt candidates who conflate recognizing an expense with establishing an allowance, or who think direct write-offs can substitute for estimation. It is incorrect because CECL requires an allowance for expected credit losses at initial recognition; direct write-offs are used later when specific accounts are determined to be uncollectible, not as a substitute at the time of sale.
Question 5
Hint
Focus on the journal entry for writing off a specific receivable under the allowance method, not the direct write-off method.
Answer A. Under the allowance method, a write-off is recorded by debiting the allowance for credit losses and crediting accounts receivable. Because both gross receivables and the allowance decrease by the same amount, net trade receivables (gross receivables less allowance) remain unchanged at the write-off date. No additional bad debt expense is recognized at write-off if the loss was already included in the allowance estimate.
Why not B: Tempting because an uncollectible account seems to imply an immediate expense, but under the allowance method the expense was recognized earlier when the allowance was estimated; the write-off simply uses that existing allowance.
Why not C: This misreads timing: once a specific account is identified as uncollectible and written off, accounts receivable is credited immediately, so gross receivables do decrease at that point.
Why not D: Economically true in the long run, but accounting already reflected the expected loss when the allowance was established; the subsequent write-off does not further reduce net receivables if it was previously estimated.
Question 6
Hint
First compute the ending gross accounts receivable balance, then apply the year-end allowance required for expected credit losses.
Answer C. Ending gross trade receivables are $548,000: $420,000 beginning balance + $1,200,000 credit sales - $1,050,000 collections - $22,000 write-offs. Net trade receivables equal gross receivables less the required ending allowance for expected credit losses of $16,000. Therefore, Morn should report $548,000 - $16,000 = $532,000.
Why not A: This results from subtracting the $22,000 write-off again when moving from gross to net receivables (548,000 − 22,000 = 526,000). The write-off already reduced accounts receivable in the rollforward, so deducting it a second time understates net receivables.
Why not B: This comes from subtracting the beginning allowance balance ($18,000) instead of the required ending allowance ($16,000): 548,000 − 18,000 = 530,000. The balance sheet should report receivables net of the ending allowance estimate.
Why not D: $548,000 is the ending gross accounts receivable balance before considering the allowance. It is incorrect because trade receivables are reported net of the allowance for expected credit losses (i.e., gross less $16,000).
Common questions
When do you recognize a CECL allowance for trade receivables?
Recognize the allowance when the receivable is initially recorded. Do not wait until the balance becomes past due or a customer defaults.
How do you estimate expected credit losses on trade receivables?
Estimate losses over the receivables' remaining life using historical loss experience adjusted for current conditions and reasonable, supportable forecasts. Update the allowance at each reporting date.
Does writing off a receivable change net receivables or bad debt expense?
Not when the loss was already included in the allowance estimate. The write-off reduces gross receivables and the allowance equally, leaving net receivables, total assets, and current-period expense unchanged.
Practice FAR like the real exam
The free ChatCPA simulator: real exam layout, timed testlets, starting with a question on this topic. No account needed to start.
Open the free simulator →More on Trade receivables
Questions from the ChatCPA bank of 17,658 CPA exam questions, each with a written reason for every wrong answer. ChatCPA is built by Nicholas Miller, CPA (Oregon #14907). How these pages are made. Spot an error? Tell us.