The free online event held in English with resources in French and Spanish.

This webinar covered the proposals in relation to Common model for grants revenue & expenses that are set out in the International Non-Profit Accounting Guidance Exposure Draft 2 (INPAG ED2).

The webinar took the following questions and comments from participants:

Q1: These proposals seems very complicated. Lots of new terms and quite a lot to get your head around. Why is it so complicated?

Q2: How are the proposals in INPAG relevant for stakeholders in countries that already have NPO-specific guidance, like UK or Australia?

Q3: Given that there is a common model for making and receiving grants, is it expected that the accounting would be mirrored? Would grantors and grantees need to coordinate to assure their grant accounting was consistent?

Q4: Why does INPAG use the language of Principal and Agent? The terms that are more commonly used in the sector are Prime and Sub. Related to that, if you outsource grant management and accounting to an agency, would the NPO only recognise income net of their fees?

Q5: If an INGO has sub-grantees, it might need to consolidate the expenditure of its partners on a line by line basis for purposes of reporting to the donor, but just show one line of ‘grant expenses’ in its general purpose accounts, in accordance with INPAG – is that correct?

Q6: The accounting concept of ‘matching’ income and expenses was thrown out more than a decade ago! But the proposals for accounting for EGAs (enforceable grant agreements) sound like INPAG is going back to a matching approach? Is that correct?

Q7: The proposals say that capital grants, for the purchase of assets, should be recognised on receipt if they are an OFA (Other Funding Arrangement). And yet the expenditure that can be charged against that income is just the depreciation. This could give rise to a big surplus, which might be subjected to tax in some jurisdictions.

Watch the video below