Bill-and-Hold Revenue, Rebates and Auditor Independence at Kowa Foods Plc
Kowa Foods Plc, a Nigerian listed manufacturer, reports under IFRS with a 31 December year end. In December 2025 it recognised ₦1.8bn of revenue from a distributor under a bill-and-hold arrangement. The goods remain in Kowa's warehouse, are not segregated, and the distributor has paid only a 10% deposit; delivery is scheduled for February 2026 because the distributor's warehouse is being refurbished. Separately, a customer contract gives a 4% rebate on all purchases once annual volume exceeds 5,000 tonnes. At year end the customer had bought 4,700 tonnes at an average ₦320,000 per tonne; the CFO expects 5,400 tonnes based on a signed Q1 2026 order. No rebate has been accrued. Audit materiality is ₦450m. Reversing the bill-and-hold sale would push the net debt/EBITDA covenant from 3.4x to 3.7x against a 3.5x limit. The audit partner has also billed ₦120m for ERP implementation advice, against a ₦38m audit fee, and the CFO is pressing for a clean audit.
1. Evaluate whether the ₦1.8bn bill-and-hold revenue and the volume rebate should be recognised or accrued at 31 December 2025. Show the IFRS 15 reasoning and quantify the rebate adjustment.
Read the worked answer
Issue: Whether control transferred for the bill-and-hold sale and whether the rebate is variable consideration that must be constrained or accrued.
Bill-and-hold: IFRS 15 recognises revenue when control passes. A bill-and-hold arrangement can transfer control only if all of the following are met: (i) the reason for the arrangement is substantive; (ii) the product is separately identified as belonging to the customer; (iii) the product is ready for delivery; and (iv) the entity cannot use the product for another customer. Here the goods are not segregated, so they are not separately identified and Kowa can still sell them to another customer. The 10% deposit and the February delivery date do not cure this. The refurbishment reason may be substantive, but the other criteria fail. Conclusion: reverse the ₦1.8bn sale; recognise when goods are delivered and control passes. If the contract is non-cancellable and all criteria are later met, recognise then.
Rebate: The 4% rebate is variable consideration. Kowa should use the expected value or most likely amount, and include it only to the extent it is highly probable that a significant reversal will not occur. The signed Q1 order makes 5,400 tonnes probable, but Kowa must also consider historical volumes, cancellation terms and whether the order is binding. If probable and estimable, accrue rebate on all purchases: 5,400 tonnes x ₦320,000 = ₦1.728bn; 4% = ₦69.12m. Reduce revenue and recognise a refund liability. If not probable, disclose a contingent liability.
Aggregate: total revenue adjustment is ₦1.8bn + ₦69m = ₦1.869bn, above materiality of ₦450m. The covenant breach is an incentive for bias, not a reason to accept the accounting. The financial statements should disclose the revenue policy, the variable consideration judgement and the covenant position.
2. Assess the threats to the audit partner's independence and professional scepticism, and recommend safeguards or actions before the audit report is signed.
Read the worked answer
Threats: (1) Self-review: the firm's ERP implementation advice may affect the financial reporting system, and the audit team may later audit controls or balances it helped design. (2) Self-interest and fee dependence: ₦120m consulting vs ₦38m audit; total fees may be significant. (3) Familiarity and intimidation: the CFO's pressure and the covenant breach create incentives for bias. (4) Possible advocacy if the firm is seen to support management's position.
Evaluation: Under the IESBA/ICAN Code and SEC/FRCN independence rules for public interest entities, non-assurance services that create a self-review threat are prohibited if safeguards cannot reduce the threat to an acceptable level. ERP implementation is especially sensitive where it affects financial reporting. The audit committee must pre-approve any non-assurance service; here there is no evidence of approval. The fee dependence and long association may compound the threat. The audit partner should not rely on the CFO's assurance; the 10% deposit and covenant pressure heighten fraud risk.
Actions before signing: (i) escalate to the firm's ethics or independence partner and engagement quality reviewer; (ii) disclose the consulting engagement and fees to the audit committee; (iii) separate the ERP team from the audit team and impose an information barrier; (iv) consider resigning the ERP engagement or the audit, depending on materiality and safeguards; (v) perform additional procedures on cut-off, rebates and side agreements; (vi) obtain written representations and consider a qualified opinion if management refuses to adjust. The covenant breach and any lender waiver must be disclosed. The firm should document the threat assessment and safeguards. If the self-review threat cannot be eliminated, decline to sign the audit report.
3. Draft the key matters you would require the CFO to disclose to the audit committee, including covenant implications.
Read the worked answer
Matters for the audit committee: (1) The ₦1.8bn bill-and-hold revenue is not eligible for recognition; reversing it moves the covenant from 3.4x to 3.7x. (2) The ₦69m rebate accrual is required if the 5,400-tonne expectation is probable; the basis must be documented. (3) The covenant breach may trigger lender acceleration; obtain a waiver or consent and assess going-concern and liquidity disclosures. (4) The CFO's pressure and the audit partner's non-audit fees create a governance issue; the committee should review auditor independence and approve or deny non-audit services. (5) Internal controls around bill-and-hold, segregation of goods, rebate tracking and revenue cut-off need remediation. (6) Disclose the revenue judgements, covenant compliance and any post-balance-sheet delivery. The committee should meet without management and minute its conclusions.