Transition provisions: Section 23 Revenue from Contracts with Customers
Revised Section 23 introduces a fundamentally different approach to revenue recognition. Before commencing detailed contract analysis, organisations must first understand the transition requirements and choices that exist. The transition approach adopted will drive the periods affected and the data that needs to be collated and analysed.
Section 23 provides a choice of transition methods, either the fully retrospective approach or the modified retrospective approach. The table below outlines the key features of each option.
| Approach options | Practical application | When would organisations apply this? |
| Fully retrospective application | Restate comparatives as if revised Section 23 had always applied.
Recognise the cumulative effect in opening equity of the earliest comparative (1 January 2025). | Apply if comparability matters to users of the financial statements.
Avoid if reconstructing historic contract data will be onerous. |
| Modified retrospective approach | Do not restate the comparative period to 31 December 2025.
Record a cumulative catch‑up at the date of initial application (1 January 2026).
Apply Section 23 only to contracts that are not complete at 1 January 2026. | Apply if you want to reduce transition effort.
Avoid if like‑for‑like comparatives are essential. |
Practical expedients
Both approaches offer several optional practical expedients that can be applied where relevant. If a company chooses to use any of these, they must be applied consistently across all contracts.
| Area | Availability | Provision | When would organisations apply this? |
| Completed contracts | Fully retrospective application only | For completed contracts, it is not required to restate contracts which:
| Apply if the company has many legacy contracts.
Avoid if completed contracts materially affect comparatives. |
| Completed contracts | Fully retrospective application and modified retrospective approach | For completed contracts with variable consideration, consideration at completion may be used rather than estimating variable consideration in comparative periods. | |
| Contract modifications | Fully retrospective application and modified retrospective approach | For contracts modified before the date of initial application, organisations may apply a single aggregated adjustment at either:
Rather than reconstructing each modification. | Apply if there are numerous variations.
Avoid if stakeholders value granular history. |
Please note all organisations will need to disclose the transition approach and practical expedients applied in the first financial statements in which the amendments to Section 23 are effective (31 December 2026).
What does this mean in practice?
Organisations may choose the modified retrospective approach on the basis that it is less onerous, however, it reduces comparability. To address this, Management may choose to present enhanced transition disclosures to aid understanding of the changes.
Where fully retrospective adoption is used, it is typically to meet users’ demand for stronger comparability. However, in some cases, it may be driven by transactions linked to key metrics in the financial statements, for example, measures of profit, including EBITDA.
Outside the financial statements, organisations are also considering ways to maintain comparability in management reporting, including retaining historic GAAP figures alongside the new information until it is fully understood.
Closing thoughts
Implementation choices determine how changes will be embedded across the organisation, how much historical data must be analysed, and how financial impacts are communicated.
Selecting a suitable transition approach, using practical expedients where they add real value, and planning work systematically, helps organisations manage implementation efficiently and avoids unnecessary complexity. A thoughtful, measured approach keeps the process manageable and aligned with business needs.