원칙중심의 국제회계기준은 개별 기업의 상황을 적절히 반영하는 목적적합한 정보를 제공함으로써 재무정보의 유용성을 제고하 고자 한다. 그러나 현실에서는 명확한 기준의 부재와 높은 수준의 재량으로 회계처리와 관련한 혼선과 함께 재무정보의 비교가능성이 저해될 수 있다는 우려가 지속적으로 제기되고 있다. 신용카드 포인트 리워드(이하 ‘포인트’)도 과거에는 일관된 회계처리 관행이 자리잡고 있었으나, 수익인식 기준서와 금융상품 기준서가 전면 개편되며 여러 회계처리 대안이 거론되고 있는 대표적 분야다. 이에 본 연구는 기준서 내용에 대한 이론적 논의를 토대로 포인트 거래와 관련한 기준서 간 적용 우선순위와 각 기준서별 고려사항을 정리하고, 회계처리 차이로 인한 재무적 영향을 분석한다. 또한 국내 카드사 공시자료를 분석하여 카드사별 회계정책과 공시가 일관되지 않으며, 이로 인해 포인트 재무정보의 비교가능성이 저해될 수 있음을 보인다. 끝으로 금융감독당국의 감독지침(또는 예시적 회계처리) 제공, 회계정책에 대한 주석공시 강화와 체계적 공식양식 마련 등 포인트 재무정보 비교가능성 제고를 위한 다양한 개선방안을 제안한다. 본 연구는 기존의 수익인식 사례연구를 보완하며 포인트 거래와 회계처리에 대한 학습, 회계정책 등 다양한 목적의 참고자료로 유용할 것으로 기대된다.
Principle-based International Financial Reporting Standards aim at providing value-relevant information tailored to the characteristics of each financial reporting entity. In reality, however, the IFRS system has been criticized for the lack of clear guidance on accounting treatments and excessive discretion, raising concerns on confusion among market participants and declined comparability of financial information. Credit card point reward (hereafter ‘point’) is one representative example where the market falls into disorder as the new accounting standards are being introduced. Hence, this study first prioritizes the standards related to point transactions and, then, discusses considerations in applying each standard and financial impacts from the resultant accounting treatments. Regarding the application order among the standards (i.e., IFRS 15, IFRS 9, and IAS 37) for point transactions, no clear priority exists between IFRS 15 and IFRS 9 because both standards are mutually exclusive in their scope of application. On the other hand, IAS 37 follows a basic rule to give priority to other accounting standards, including IFRS 15 and 9, if those standards are applicable in advance. Therefore, either IFRS 15 or 9 should be first adopted which is expected to better represent the economic substance of point transactions, and IAS 37 is subsequently applied only when both IFRS 15 and 9 are not applicable. Regarding accounting considerations of point transactions, the following issues need to be carefully reviewed when IFRS 15 is applied. In the first step of ‘identifying the contract’, it is important to decide whether a credit card member is a customer as defined by IFRS 15 since the standard only applies to a contract with a customer. Otherwise, the application of other standards such as IFRS 9 and IAS 37 should be considered. In the second step of ‘identifying performance obligations’, the major concern is the principal versus agent consideration which is determined by the role of a credit card company in point transactions. If a company plays a role as a principal (an agent), the responsibility of providing (arranging) point-related services to credit card members is identified (unidentified) as a separate performance obligation. In the third step of ‘determining the transaction price’ and the fourth step of ‘allocating the transaction price to performance obligations’, the probability of credit card members’ using points matters because it directly affects the amount of revenues to be recognized as points are being used in the future (i.e., point-related performance obligations are completed). In the final fifth step, credit card companies, if they play a principal role, recognize both revenues and expenses when points are used (i.e., a ‘gross-amount’ approach in which revenues and matched expenses are recognized). If companies are an agent, however, no revenues and expenses are recognized because the arranging role is not identified as a performance obligation in the second step so the remaining procedures from the third to fifth steps are unnecessary (i.e., a ‘net-amount’ approach in which the book value of liabilities due to the agent role is deducted from the total franchise fee revenues). In applying IFRS 9, the key consideration is whether a point satisfies the definition of a financial instrument. If IFRS 9 is applied, both the gross- and net-amount accounting treatments are possible based on the characteristics of point transactions. To apply IAS 37 which is inferior in application to other standards, two conditions are required to be met; i) credit card members are not customers by IFRS 15 (i.e., IFRS 15 is not applicable), and ii) points are not financial instruments by IFRS 9 (i.e., IFRS 9 is not applicable). IAS 37 being applied, a ‘gross-amount’ accounting treatment is desirable given the basic purpose of recognizing contingent liabilities to better match revenues with related expenses. As such, depending on the standards applied and the decisions made on the issues described so far, different accounting treatments are possible for point transactions under the current financial reporting system. This uncertainty potentially generates significant inconsistency and low comparability in point-related accounting policies and disclosure across credit card companies in Korea. To mitigate such a problem, we suggest some remedial actions for enhanced cross-sectional comparability on financial performance information (e.g., preparation of guidance on accounting treatments and standardization of footnote disclosure formats). Our study is useful for learners and staff in the credit card industry, adds to prior case studies regarding IFRS 15 practices, and provides policy implications for financial regulatory authority.