IFRS vs US GAAP — what growing global businesses need to know
Where the two frameworks diverge in practice, and how to manage group reporting across both.
Revenue: ASC 606 and IFRS 15 are close, but not identical
The five-step model is shared, but the differences show up in practice. Licence revenue, variable consideration, contract modifications and shipping-and-handling treatment can all land differently depending on which framework you apply first. For SaaS and project-based businesses, lock the revenue accounting policy in writing and test it against both frameworks before the year-end audit, not during it.
Leases: a single model under IFRS 16, a dual model under ASC 842
IFRS 16 puts almost every lease on balance sheet with one accounting model. ASC 842 keeps the operating-versus-finance distinction, which changes the P&L pattern significantly. For groups consolidating across both frameworks, this is the most common source of reconciling items — capture the difference in a standing schedule rather than rebuilding it every period.
Financial instruments and impairment
IFRS 9 uses an expected-credit-loss model from day one; US GAAP applies CECL. The mechanics differ, the disclosures differ, and the data you need to support each is different. Build the impairment workings once with both views, and reuse them — building them twice a year is where most error and audit friction creeps in.
Practical group reporting
Most growing groups report internally under one framework and externally under another. The clean pattern is a single source-of-truth ledger in the operating framework, a documented bridge to the reporting framework, and a reconciliation that lives in version-controlled workpapers. Done well, this turns dual reporting into a once-built discipline rather than a recurring fire drill.