A refundable grant: condition or restriction?
The Provincial Education Foundation, a government entity, received Rs 200 million in July 2024 as the first tranche of a Rs 500 million federal grant for constructing 40 schools. The MoU states that funds must be used only for construction; construction must be completed by 30 June 2027; any amount not utilised for the purpose, or remaining if the programme is cancelled, must be refunded within 60 days; and the foundation must submit quarterly expenditure certificates. By 30 June 2025, Rs 150 million of eligible construction expenditure had been incurred and Rs 50 million was held in a separate bank account. The foundation also spent Rs 30 million of its own funds on architectural design, which the MoU does not list as an eligible purpose. The finance officer has recorded the full Rs 200 million as income and the Rs 50 million as a reserve.
1. Classify the grant under IPSAS 23 and compute the revenue and liability to be recognised at 30 June 2025.
Read the worked answer
The refund clause makes this a condition, not a mere restriction. Under IPSAS 23, a condition creates a present obligation to return resources if they are not used as specified; a restriction only limits the purpose without creating a return obligation. Revenue is recognised only when the condition is satisfied, which here means to the extent eligible construction expenditure is incurred.
Revenue = Rs 150 million. Liability = Rs 50 million, being the unspent balance that is refundable if the programme is cancelled or the purpose is not met. The Rs 50 million is not a reserve and not deferred income presented in equity; it is a financial liability, presented separately from the foundation's own reserves.
The Rs 30 million design cost is outside the MoU's eligible purposes, so it does not satisfy any condition and cannot be netted against the grant. It is the foundation's own expense, funded from its own resources. If design had been eligible, the condition would have been satisfied to that extent and revenue would be Rs 180 million with a liability of Rs 20 million, but the facts say it is not eligible.
This differs from IAS 20, where a grant is recognised when there is reasonable assurance of compliance and then matched to costs; IPSAS 23 turns on the enforceable condition and the refund obligation.
2. The programme is cancelled in September 2025, a refund of the Rs 50 million is demanded, and a review finds that Rs 10 million of the Rs 150 million spent was ineligible. How should these be accounted for?
Read the worked answer
The Rs 50 million is already a liability, so repayment simply settles it: derecognise cash and the liability, with no new income or expense. If the refund is demanded but unpaid at the reporting date, it remains a payable and should be disclosed.
The Rs 10 million ineligible expenditure means the condition was not satisfied for that amount. Recognise a liability of Rs 10 million and reverse Rs 10 million of revenue. If the reversal relates to the prior year and is material, treat it as a prior period adjustment under IPSAS 3 rather than as a current-year expense, because the condition was never met at the prior year end. If it is not material, recognise the expense in the current year.
Consider whether the foundation has a right of recovery against the contractor or designer for the ineligible work; if so, recognise a receivable only when recovery is virtually certain, and disclose a contingent asset otherwise. Also disclose the circumstances of the cancellation prominently, because users will want to know why a programme with a 2027 completion date was stopped in 2025.
3. What audit procedures and disclosures would you require for this grant?
Read the worked answer
Obtain and read the MoU and any amendments, because the condition versus restriction conclusion depends on the exact wording of the refund clause. Confirm the tranche amount received and the closing bank balance directly with the grantor and the bank. Test the Rs 150 million of expenditure against the MoU's eligible purposes, sampling invoices and contracts, and test cut-off around 30 June so that costs incurred after year end are not included.
Inspect the quarterly expenditure certificates submitted to the grantor and agree them to the accounting records; a difference indicates either poor reporting or unrecorded expenditure. Check that the Rs 50 million is in a separate bank account and is not used for the foundation's general operations. Test whether the design cost has been wrongly netted against grant income.
Disclosure: the nature and purpose of the grant, the conditions, the amount recognised as revenue, the unspent balance presented as a liability, and any contingent liability if completion is behind schedule or the refund is disputed. Assess whether repayment of the unspent amount would strain the foundation's finances and, if so, consider going concern disclosure. Report any ineligible expenditure as a control finding, not merely as an audit adjustment.