Table above present the journal entries for all the R&D transactions as observed for BSF from 2013 to 2016. Jørgensen and Messner (2010) have explained that research and development costs can be recognized in financial accounts of the firm as an expense during the period in which it is incurred and hence when these costs are recognized as expense, the costs are usually not capitalized or recorded in the form of an intangible asset.
The grant received from CSIRO and its expenditures are given above, which shows that the $500 grant that has been received has been shown as a credit to the company because it receives that amount. This amount of $500 has been hence recorded as a capital income, which is deferred in nature and would be hence used in the future for expense purposes. Hence, the credit is the grant received and debit is because it is the income not received by the firm. Since CSIRO required the company to spend at least $100 million every year on alternative aquaculture feeds, $100 million in 2014 and 2015 has been debited as research expense and $100 million has been credited in response to the deferred capital income of 2013, which is being expensed later. This has thus helped in adjusting the grant over a period of time.
Table above presents the journal entries for the development costs that are to be incurred by the firm for developing an alternative aquaculture feed. Assuming that the patent would be sold at $700 million after two years, $700 million has been recorded as deferred income. The company would earn $700 million over the development cost of $200 million and hence $500 million has been recorded as the future profit that would go to the profit and loss account of the firm.
7. Evaluation of BSF’s Assertion Regarding Patent Values
It has been asserted by BSF Ltd. that the value of patent that was stated or affirmed was done on the basis of the fact that BSF would have complete control over the technology of developing bacteria based feeds.
However, the assertion does not seem to be completely reasonable because there are already studies and researches that have been carried out on the subject and there are also patents related to the same. The discussions presented by Brodin (2014) in Norway reveal that bacterial meal is already largely being used and added to compound feed in addition to fishmeal and oils to improve the nutritional value and quality of the feed that is generated. According to Brodin (2014), the feed produced in the country is making use of bacterial meal that is then grown on natural gas that emerges from North Sea for providing proteins to farmed fish. In addition, as discussed by Helmer (2016), a California based company has also been successful in the development of fish feed that is being based on methane eating bacteria and would help in improving the society by having health, economic and environmental benefits.
Also, the patent would be developed with the funding received from CSIRO. Though the given condition of funding reflects that BSF only had to spend $100 million per year on the research of an alternative aquaculture feed and hence the assertion of BSF of having complete control would be valid, Dodgson et al (2011) argue that government grants for research include shared control of the final product that is developed so that the government can leverage upon the benefits.
There are several accounting laws and requirements that define the same. ASC 730-20 of FASB accounting standards that defines the research and development arrangements. Flood (2014) explains that there are different provisions under ASC 730-20 that defines control in cases when research is completely or partially funded by an external party. According to the requirements, when an entity receives cash for funding, he or she is liable to provide something in return (Flood, 2015). Hence in this case, since BSF agreed to offer research on a different feed, it can have the control. However, the fact that the feed was asked by the government, CSIRO would also have control on the same or else the research will become futile for it.
Thus, the assertion of BSF seems to be reasonable only to some extent not completely.
8. Conclusion
The report discusses and leads to the conclusion that the research being carried out BSF is highly beneficial and advantageous for the society and the environment as well. The company’s fair market value seems to be higher and it can hence sell its patents at higher value provided the market conditions remain the same, but the assertion that it will have complete control over the patent seems slightly unreasonable.
1,212,718Orders
4.9/5Rating
5,063Experts
Turnitin Report
$10.00Proofreading and Editing
$9.00Per PageConsultation with Expert
$35.00Per HourLive Session 1-on-1
$40.00Per 30 min.Quality Check
$25.00Total
FreeGet
500 Words Free
on your assignment today
Get
500 Words Free
on your assignment today
Request Callback
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....
Lock in your expert now.
Pay the rest only after you're 100% satisfied.
Why this is a no-brainer: