By Navneet Sharma, KNAV U.S.
In today’s reporting environment, the real test of financial statement integrity often lies not in the standards themselves, but in the judgment calls that shape their application. These judgment areas, including estimates, classifications, and interpretations, have become the quiet fault lines where errors begin and restatements ultimately surface.
These judgment calls require both technical expertise and a strong framework. When assumptions are applied inconsistently or when operational or commercial pressures influence decisions, even insignificant misjudgments can lead to material misstatements. As a result, the strength of governance, internal controls, and audit oversight is just as important as the accounting standards themselves, to ensure that financial reporting accurately reflects the underlying economic reality.
Below are some of the judgment‑sensitive areas that consistently appear across the restatement pattern, which are discussed herewith:
- Complex financial instruments
- Revenue Recognition – Principal vs. Agent (Gross vs. Net) Determination:
- Deferred tax assets and liabilities
- Complex Financial Instruments:
Misclassification of complex financial instruments is a leading cause of financial statements restatements. Industry data shows that across the past two decades, debt and equity-related issues consistently top the causes of restatements in financial statements, representing more than a quarter of all restatements between 2004 and 2023. The pattern intensified during the SPAC boom of 2021, where the accounting for warrants alone drove a surge in reissuance restatements.
Recommended Articles
Technology February 8, 2026
Thomson Reuters Adds ‘Audit’ to Professional Product Name
Technology February 4, 2026
FlexTecs Secures Investment From PE Firm Cohere Capital
Key Categories of complex financial instruments:
- Convertible Debt instrument:
Convertible debt combines characteristics of both liabilities and equity. The accounting challenges arise from the embedded option that allows the debt to be converted into shares of the issuer’s stock.
Where Judgment Matters Most:
The principal judgment lies in determining whether the conversion feature should be accounted as a part of the host debt instrument (where no bifurcation is required) or be separated when bifurcation is necessary. Further judgment is needed to assess whether the bifurcated component must be accounted for as a derivative or qualifies for a scope exception and is therefore recorded as an equity component. This assessment depends on the terms of conversion. Judgment is required to correctly interpret complex terms such as variable settlement, option for cash settlement instead of share issuance, embedded features, or resets/anti-dilution clauses. Each of these factors can dramatically change accounting treatment.
Restatements Triggers:
- Omitting a required derivative component: For example, a company issues a convertible note but incorrectly records the entire instrument as debt, despite the conversion feature failing the equity scope exception under ASC 815‑40 and requiring bifurcation as a derivative liability. This misclassification results in misstated liabilities and earnings, as the fair‑value measurement and subsequent remeasurement of the derivative component is not recognized.
- Incorrect accounting for conversion feature: Applying the appropriate accounting model (conversion, induced conversion, or extinguishment) for the conversion feature requires a judgment-based assessment under ASC 470‑20 and ASC 815‑40. Errors typically arise while determining whether settlement occurs under original or modified terms and whether consideration aligns with preexisting conversion privileges, particularly when cash‑settlement options, variable conversion terms, or modified conversion incentives are involved.
- Warrants
Warrants (options giving the holder the right to purchase a company’s shares at a specified price) have been a significant source of restatement. A major driver of the surge in warrant-related restatements was the SEC’s guidance on the appropriate accounting for warrants and redeemable shares.
While warrants are issued as equity-linked instruments, their accounting classification (equity vs. liability) is sensitive to the fine print of their terms. Misjudging those terms has led to multiple restatements.
Where Judgment Matters Most:
The key judgment in warrant classification is determining whether the instrument qualifies as equity or must be treated as a liability. Warrants are classified as equity only if they are “fixed-for-fixed” involving a fixed number of shares for a fixed amount of cash. Features like variable settlement terms, cash alternatives, or change-in-control provisions often breach this criterion and require liability treatment.
Restatements Triggers:
- Overlooked variable settlement terms: For instance, a warrant might contain a clause that if a specified event occurs (say, the company’s share price falls below a threshold or the company is acquired), the warrant holder is entitled to a variable number of shares or a cash payout. If such features breach the fixed-for-fixed criterion and are missed, the warrant would be reclassified as a liability and often requires a restatement.
- Tender offer provisions: Certain tender offer provisions must be evaluated under GAAP. Say, an event outside the entity’s control may require net cash settlement, the warrant must be classified as a liability unless cash settlement occurs only when all underlying shareholders also receive cash. This narrow exception applies only to events that fundamentally change ownership, such as a change in control or nationalization.
A qualifying tender or exchange offer clause that entitles all warrant holders to receive cash, but only certain common shareholders receive cash, is not aligned with a fundamental change event affecting all shareholders. This fails the exception requiring the warrants to be recorded as liabilities,which may lead to a restatement.
- Indexation to other than the entity’s own stock: Certain warrant provisions allow potential changes to the settlement amount based on the characteristics of the holder. This is not an allowable input in a fixed‑for‑fixed option pricing model. Such holder‑dependent variables violate the fixed‑for‑fixed requirement and thereby require liability classification.
- Redeemable Shares
Redeemable shares (such as certain preferred shares or redeemable ordinary shares) present a unique classification challenge. These are shares that include provisions allowing or requiring the issuing company to buy back the shares for cash or other assets, either at the option of the holder or upon the occurrence of specific events. The question is whether these instruments are to be classified as liability, permanent equity, or temporary equity (also called mezzanine equity), which is disclosed outside of ordinary stockholders’ equity.
Where Judgment Matters Most:
The primary judgment involves assessing whether the redemption feature causes the shares to be classified outside of ordinary stockholders’ equity. Accounting standards generally assert that if an instrument embodies an obligation for the issuer to transfer cash or another asset either mandatorily on a future date, or at the holder’s discretion, then it is not a perpetual equity interest. The judgment requires interpreting the contract language and applying the precise definitions in the relevant accounting framework.
Restatements Triggers:
- Classifying mandatorily redeemable preference shares as equity: As per ASC 480, if shares must be bought back by the company on a specific date, they meet the definition of a liability. Nonetheless, companies have made mistakes – for example, treating redeemable preferred stock as ordinary equity capital. Such errors may initially go unnoticed, especially if the redemption date is far in the future.
- Misinterpreting conditional redemption features: Sometimes the trigger for share redemption depends on specific events (e.g., a change in control or regulatory approval). In accordance with ASC 480, if redemption is outside the company’s control, equity classification is generally not permitted for public companies, and temporary equity classification is required. This leads to restatement if the amounts involved are material.
What Practitioners Can Do:
The following best practices offer a unified framework to strengthen judgment, reduce misclassification risk, and enhance the reliability of financial reporting for the above-discussed categories of financial instruments.
- Perform comprehensive contractual reviews
Conduct a detailed review of all financing agreements and collaborate with legal counsel to interpret clauses that may affect classification, ensuring no embedded features are overlooked.
- Start with a clear “instrument map” before the accounting analysis
Break each instrument into its building blocks, such as conversion rights, redemption features, resets, contingencies, warrants, and embedded derivatives, to ensure no feature is overlooked and that judgments follow a logical sequence instead of relying on precedent or assumptions.
- Use decision frameworks to avoid assumption-driven conclusions
Develop firm‑wide decision-making trees or flowcharts for common features (e.g., cash settlement alternatives, variable conversion terms, contingent exercise) to promote consistent clause-by-clause evaluation instead of jumping straight to a conclusion based on “what we’ve always done.”
- Revenue Recognition – Principal vs. Agent (Gross vs. Net) Determination:
Restatements in revenue recognition frequently arise from areas requiring significant judgment, and among them, the principal‑versus‑agent (gross vs. net) determination remains one of the most common sources of error.
Where Judgment Matters Most:
Determining whether a company is acting as a principal (reporting revenue on a gross basis) or as an agent (reporting revenue on a net basis) depends on assessing control, performance obligations, and the roles of all parties involved. This judgment becomes more challenging when multiple entities participate in delivering goods or services, as is common in digital platforms, distribution networks, outsourcing arrangements, and service‑bundling models.
Evaluating indicators of control, such as responsibility for fulfillment, discretion in pricing, and inventory risk, requires careful analysis rather than relying on contractual labels or operational assumptions.
Restatements Triggers:
Restatements in this area often stem from misjudging who controls the goods or services before it reaches the customer. Errors usually arise from:
- Misinterpreting whether the company has primary responsibility for fulfillment.
- Overlooking situations where the company never obtains control of the product or service.
- Incorrectly treating a platform, intermediary, or distributor as a principal when it is merely facilitating a transaction.
- Relying on contractual wording rather than the substance of the arrangement, especially when various parties are involved.
These judgments can inflate or understate revenue, both of which may trigger restatements when discovered.
What Practitioners Can Do:
- Assess the specification of the promised good or service
Clearly identify whether the promise is to provide a distinct good or service, or to arrange for another party to provide it. Misidentifying the specified good or service is a common root cause of incorrect principal‑vs‑agent conclusions.
- Perform a rigorous control analysis
Management should perform a rigorous control analysis by assessing whether the entity obtains control of the specified good or service before it is transferred to the customer, as required under ASC 606‑10‑55‑36 through 55‑40. To make this determination, management should evaluate control based on substance over form, focusing on whether the entity has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the good or service prior to transfer. This includes analyzing whether the entity has primary responsibility for fulfillment, whether it has discretion in establishing pricing, and whether it is exposed to inventory risk before the customer receives the good or service.
- Compare the conclusion to actual operational behavior
Various misclassifications arise because the accounting conclusion reflects the contract, while real-world operations tell a different story. Align the assessment with how the transaction works in practice.
- Deferred tax assets and liabilities:
Deferred tax accounting is one of the most judgment-intensive areas as it requires estimating the future tax consequences of today’s transactions. It is a frequent source of restatements because it relies heavily on forward-looking judgments about future taxable income, the timing of reversals of temporary differences, and how tax authorities will ultimately evaluate a company’s positions.
Where Judgment Matters Most:
The most significant judgment is assessing whether deferred tax assets are realizable, including the need for a valuation allowance. This depends on weighing positive and negative evidence, forecasting future profitability, and evaluating viable tax‑planning strategies. Judgment is also required when evaluating uncertain tax positions and assessing timing differences across multiple jurisdictions, particularly when tax rates change or new legislation affects the treatment of income, credits, or allowable deductions.
Restatements Triggers:
- Misjudging valuation allowance needs:
Errors arise when companies reverse allowances too early due to optimistic income projections or retain them unnecessarily because of overly conservative assumptions.
- Incorrect evaluation of uncertain tax positions (UTPs):
Restatements occur when the more‑likely‑than‑not threshold is misapplied, exposures are overlooked, or settlement amounts are measured incorrectly.
- Errors in temporary difference calculations:
Misclassifying or miscomputing items such as depreciation, accruals, revenue timing, or foreign branch allocations leads to overstated or understated deferred tax balances across multiple periods.
What Practitioners Can Do:
- Use a disciplined valuation allowance framework:
Apply structured models that incorporate historical profitability, future forecasts, reversals of temporary differences, and tax‑planning strategies. Document both positive and negative evidence thoroughly.
- Strengthen governance over uncertain tax positions:
Establish clear protocols for evaluating recognition thresholds, measuring exposures, and reassessing positions as new information emerges.
- Perform regular reconciliations of temporary differences:
Align deferred tax calculations with statutory filings and operational data, particularly for multinational entities.
Several other judgment-driven areas, such as stock-based compensation, accruals, and business combinations, contribute to these restatement trends. These areas, driven by judgments and estimates, make them equally vulnerable to errors.
Bottom line
Ultimately, financial reporting quality depends not just on technical compliance but on the strength of the judgments that sit behind every estimate, classification, and disclosure. For professionals, the path forward is straightforward: bring structure to judgment, support conclusions in evidence, and revisit decisions whenever facts change. When teams build disciplined processes around these high-risk areas, they not only reduce the likelihood of restatements but also reinforce the credibility of the financial statements and the confidence of those who rely on them.
=-
Navneet Sharma, CPA, is a Partner at KNAV Advisory Inc. with over 13 years’ experience in audits, technical accounting, and SEC reporting. He advises clients across sectors on complex U.S. GAAP matters and serves on the AICPA’s Accounting and Review Services Committee.
KNAV is a global accounting and advisory firm providing assurance and technical accounting services to private and public companies. With offices across North America, Europe, and Asia, KNAV supports clients in sectors such as manufacturing, technology, and financial services. The firm specialises in U.S. GAAP, IFRS, and SEC reporting, helping businesses navigate complex financial and compliance challenges.
Thanks for reading CPA Practice Advisor!
Subscribe Already registered? Log In
Need more information? Read the FAQs
