A Critical Analysis of Accounting Treatment of Recoverable Employee Training Costs under Ind AS and Global Norms
"The cost of knowledge is high, but the cost of ignorance is higher. In accounting, this paradox plays out when recoverable training costs are expensed."
The Dilemma
In service contracts requiring substantial employee training, companies often face a critical accounting question: Should recoverable training costs be capitalised as contract assets or expensed immediately? Commercially, these expenses represent investments in enhanced employee capabilities essential for future service delivery and revenue generation. The intuitive business view leans towards capitalisation.
However, Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS)—particularly Ind AS 115 (Revenue from Contracts with Customers) and Ind AS 38 (Intangible Assets)—draw a distinct boundary, often compelling immediate expensing of these costs, even if reimbursed under contract terms.
Key Question:
If training costs are directly attributable to a contract and recoverable from the customer, why does accounting mandate their immediate expensing?
Legal Framework and Accounting Standards
Ind AS 115: Revenue from Contracts with Customers
Ind AS 115 permits capitalisation of contract fulfilment costs only if:
-
The costs relate directly to a specific contract,
-
They generate or enhance resources controlled by the entity to satisfy performance obligations, and
-
It is expected that the costs will be recovered.
Yet, Ind AS 115 refers to other Ind ASs for specific cost types. Employee training costs fall under the purview of Ind AS 38, which has a stricter stance.
Ind AS 38: Intangible Assets
Ind AS 38 explicitly mandates immediate expensing of training costs (para 69(c)) because:
-
Enhanced employee skills do not produce a separately identifiable intangible asset,
-
The employer does not have control over the economic benefits embedded in the employee's acquired knowledge, and
-
Reliable measurement of such “human capital” is not possible within accounting frameworks.
IFRS Perspective
Global IFRS guidance aligns with Ind AS in this regard:
-
IFRS 15 (counterpart of Ind AS 115) allows capitalisation of costs only where resources controlled by the entity are enhanced,
-
IAS 38 parallels Ind AS 38, requiring immediate expensing of training costs.
Case Studies Illustrating Real-World Application
Case Study 1: L&T Technology Services — Aerospace Contract
L&T incurred ₹2.5 crore in training 120 engineers on specialized aerospace simulation tools under a reimbursable contract with a European client. Initially, they contemplated capitalising these costs. However, audit scrutiny referencing Ind AS 38 resulted in expensing the training cost immediately. The reimbursement was recorded as revenue, but no asset was recognised.
Case Study 2: Accenture Global — IFRS Application
Accenture UK trained 300 consultants on SAP HANA technology for a German automotive client, incurring €1 million reimbursed under contract terms. Despite the direct contract link and reimbursement, costs were expensed per IAS 38, reflecting their global accounting policy.
Case Study 3: Infosys — US Banking Project
Infosys undertook domain-specific training costing ₹1.2 crore for a US mortgage underwriting project. Training costs were expensed immediately, while reimbursements were classified under "Other Income" to distinctly separate them from core service revenue.
Case Study 4: TCS — Japanese Telecom Training
TCS’s multi-year telecom software contract in Japan involved reimbursable training on Japanese telecom regulations. Auditors required expensing per Ind AS 38, despite TCS’s internal capitalisation for management reporting and performance tracking.
Case Study 5: Deloitte US — Federal Contract under US GAAP
Under US GAAP ASC 340-40, Deloitte US deferred federal contract training costs over the contract life, recognising them as deferred contract costs. Contrastingly, Deloitte India, applying Ind AS, expensed similar costs immediately, demonstrating jurisdictional divergence.
Commercial vs. Compliance Conflict: The Crux
Consider an IT firm incurring ₹50 lakh on a 4-week specialized training reimbursed by a client contract. Commercially, this investment directly improves delivery capabilities and is recoverable. However, accounting mandates immediate expensing, creating tension between economic substance and accounting form.
Critical Analysis of Trigger Points and Remedies
| Trigger Point | Commercial View | Ind AS / IFRS Treatment | Remedial Action / Planning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training cost is recoverable | Treated as a capital investment | Expensed immediately | Structure contracts to separately invoice training reimbursements |
| Training creates future economic benefit | Capitalised as contract asset | No asset recognised | Use internal management capitalisation for performance metrics |
| Cost directly linked to contract delivery | Part of contract fulfilment cost | No control over resulting ‘asset’ | Document clear separation between service fees and reimbursements |
| Measurability of cost value | Monetary and verifiable | No intangible asset can be reliably measured | Maintain detailed cost tracking and disclosures |
| Control over asset (employee knowledge) | Economic benefit expected by entity | No control, hence no asset under accounting standards | Educate stakeholders on ‘control’ criteria for asset recognition |
Expert Interpretation
Leading accounting bodies,emphasize ‘control’ as the key criterion for capitalisation under Ind AS 38. Despite commercial arguments, employee skills and knowledge are intangible and non-transferable, failing to meet asset recognition tests.
The “asset” created is human capital — inherently beyond corporate control — and hence training costs must be expensed, regardless of reimbursement contracts.
Best Practice Recommendations for Indian Entities
-
Contract Structuring:
Clearly separate training cost reimbursements from service fees in contracts and invoices. This delineation ensures that reimbursement is not conflated with contract fulfilment costs eligible for capitalisation. -
Revenue Recognition:
Recognise training reimbursements distinctly as “Other Income” or separate contract revenue items, while expensing the training costs immediately in financials. -
Documentation and Disclosure:
Maintain detailed cost tracking templates and disclose the accounting policy treatment of recoverable training costs in notes to financial statements for transparency and audit readiness. -
Internal Capitalisation for Management Reporting:
Companies may maintain internal records capitalising training costs to monitor project profitability and employee development without breaching Ind AS for statutory financials. -
Auditor Communication:
Prepare clear communication drafts for auditors outlining the accounting policy and compliance with Ind AS to pre-empt disputes.
Conclusion
The paradox remains: “Not all that is valuable can be capitalised, and not all that is expensed is a waste.” Accounting under Ind AS and IFRS is anchored in the legal principle of control and reliable measurement, not merely economic substance.
Recoverable employee training costs—even when contractually reimbursed—must be expensed immediately, reflecting the boundary between human capital and recognised assets.
For finance professionals, the challenge is to bridge commercial rationale and accounting compliance through smart contract design, clear disclosures, and robust internal controls.
"Accounting is not economics — it is structured logic under defined control."
— A guiding principle for every finance professional navigating the capitalisation-expensing divide.
