Note: This article provides a focused explanation and extended discussion on a specific standard. If you’d like to see the full list of articles and short summaries for this standard, please visit the “Series Overview” page.
Since 2025, most standard‑related articles on this site have been available in both Chinese and English versions. If you’d like to read the Chinese explanation, please visit the 「系列總覽」 page and look for the corresponding article.
Plain‑English explainer of HKAS 20 / IAS 20 for students, junior accountants and non‑specialists who find official standards too dense to read.
This article is based on Hong Kong Accounting Standards (HKAS / HKFRS), which are fully aligned with IAS / IFRS except for minor local tweaks, so the same principles generally apply under IAS / IFRS unless noted otherwise. The goal is to unpack HKAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance (equivalent to IAS 20) using plain English and practical, real‑life examples instead of technical jargon. It is written for students, junior accountants, audit juniors and finance professionals who want to understand not just “what the standard says” but how to actually read and prepare financial statements in line with it.
When you see “the company” or “the entity” below, you can think of any entity that prepares general purpose financial statements under HKFRS / IFRS.
Why “When and Where” Matters More Than “Cash In”
In many audit working papers, there is a short note saying “Government grants are recognised as income when received.” On the surface this sounds simple and harmless, but it hides real risk. If the grant has not yet met the “reasonable assurance” conditions, or if the related costs have not yet been incurred, recognising income too early can breach the core principles of HKAS 20 / IAS 20 and artificially boost current‑year profit.
The real challenge of HKAS 20 is not reading the legal text; it is judging the nature of the grant and the period over which it should be matched. A well‑judged treatment reflects the economic reality of the entity. A poor judgement on timing and presentation can create material misstatements. This article therefore looks at government grants from five angles: “When do we recognise?”, “Where do we recognise?” and “How do we present them in the most sensible way?”
What You Should Be Able To Do After Reading?
By the end, you should be able to:
- Judge when a government grant has reached “reasonable assurance” and can be recognised as income.
- Distinguish between “immediate compensation” and “future cost compensation” and apply different recognition patterns.
- Apply the income approach instead of an unacceptable cash basis when dealing with government grants.
- Compare the deferred income approach and the deduction from asset approach for asset‑related grants, and understand their impact on the financial statements.
- Choose and explain appropriate presentation methods for income‑related grants, including typical journal entries.
1. Recognition Timing – Reasonable Assurance and Immediate Compensation
HKAS 20 Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance (equivalent to IAS 20) requires grants to be recognised only when there is reasonable assurance that both of the following are satisfied:
- The entity will comply with all conditions attached to the grant.
- The entity will actually receive the grant.
Recognition is therefore not driven solely by “has the cash come in?”, but by whether the conditions and purpose of the grant have effectively been met. In most normal cases, the accrual‑based logic is that the grant is recognised over the same periods as the related expenses are incurred. For example, if the government provides an R&D subsidy, the grant is spread over the periods when R&D costs are recognised, instead of being taken to income in one lump sum. This matching reflects the economic activity that the grant is supposed to compensate.
However, HKAS 20 / IAS 20 also allows immediate recognition in specific “immediate financial support” scenarios. Typical examples include:
- The government compensates the entity for losses from an enforced closure caused by a sudden policy change.
- The government reimburses losses from a past disaster that has already happened and been fully accounted for.
These grants are compensating past expenses or losses and do not involve long‑term performance conditions, so once there is reasonable assurance, the amount can be recognised in full in profit or loss. In practice, the timing judgement depends on whether the grant is aimed at future costs (which usually calls for spreading over time) or past losses (which allows immediate recognition).
2. Income Approach vs the Unacceptable Cash Basis
HKAS 20 adopts an income approach, which is built on the accrual principle and the idea of matching grant income with related costs. Under this approach, the pattern of recognition is linked to when related expenses are recognised, rather than when cash is received.
Consider a simple example: the entity receives a government payroll subsidy of HKD 2 million to support staff costs over two years. If the entity recognises the entire HKD 2 million in the year the cash is received, that year’s profit will be artificially inflated, while next year’s profit will drop back to “normal” once the subsidy has disappeared. This makes performance look unstable and misleads users.
Using the income approach, the entity recognises the grant over the two years, aligning it with salary expenses—say HKD 1 million per year. Profit in each year then reflects both the cost and the support from the grant, giving a more faithful picture of operating performance. The cash basis is not acceptable because it ignores the purpose and conditions of the grant and treats external funding like “free profit,” which conflicts with the matching principle and with the requirement for fair presentation under HKAS 1 / IAS 1. The income approach is therefore not just a technical option; it is a mindset for maintaining high‑quality financial reporting.
3. Asset‑Related Grants – Deferred Income vs Deduction from Asset
When a government grant is used to acquire or construct long‑term assets such as machinery or buildings, HKAS 20 / IAS 20 allows two main presentation methods. The choice affects how the statement of financial position and statement of profit or loss look, but not the total profit over the life of the asset.
Deferred income approach – show the grant separately
Under the deferred income approach, the grant does not reduce the cost of the asset. Instead, it is recognised as a liability (deferred income) in the statement of financial position and is then released to profit or loss over the asset’s useful life. This approach clearly separates the original investment from the government support.
Example: The entity receives a HKD 3 million grant to help buy a machine costing HKD 10 million, with a useful life of 5 years. Under this method:
- The machine is recognised at cost of HKD 10 million.
- The HKD 3 million grant is recorded as deferred income.
- Each year, the entity recognises depreciation on the full HKD 10 million and releases part of the deferred income to profit or loss.
Illustrative entries might look like:
- On receipt of grant:
- Dr Bank 3,000,000
- Cr Deferred income – government grant 3,000,000
- Each year (simplified):
- Dr Depreciation expense 2,000,000
- Cr Accumulated depreciation 2,000,000
- Dr Deferred income 600,000
- Cr Other income – government grant 600,000
In profit or loss, users can see a separate line such as “Government grant income” each year, clearly showing how much of the grant is supporting current‑period results. The advantage is transparency around asset cost and grant amount; the drawback is an extra liability line and slightly more complex presentation.
Deduction from asset approach – net off the asset cost
Under the deduction from asset approach, the grant is deducted directly from the cost of the asset. In the same example, the machine would be recognised at HKD 7 million instead of HKD 10 million, and there would be no deferred income liability. The impact of the grant appears via lower depreciation expense over time.
Using the same numbers:
- On acquisition of the machine (net of grant):
- Dr Machinery 7,000,000
- Cr Bank 7,000,000
- Each year, depreciation is based on HKD 7 million over 5 years, i.e. HKD 1.4 million per year:
- Dr Depreciation expense 1,400,000
- Cr Accumulated depreciation 1,400,000
There is no explicit “government grant income” line, but profit benefits from lower depreciation. The advantage is simplicity and fewer line items; the disadvantage is that the asset base looks smaller, which may make metrics like return on assets (ROA) appear higher and can make it harder for users to see how much government support was actually received.
Overall, both methods lead to the same total profit over the life of the asset; the difference is purely in the path and the presentation. For non‑depreciable assets like land, the entity needs to consider whether there is an explicit “use period” condition. If there is a clear time condition (for example, land must be used for R&D for ten years), the grant can be allocated over that period; if not, it may be recognised in full when reasonable assurance is reached. In practice, many entities prefer the deferred income approach because it provides clearer information and aligns with auditors’ expectations on traceability.
4. Income‑Related Grants – Other Income vs Deducting Costs
When a grant is meant to compensate operating expenses or running costs, HKAS 20 / IAS 20 again offers two presentation options in profit or loss. The choice does not change taxable profit but affects how users read the cost structure and profitability.
Present as “other income”
The entity can present the grant separately as other income, for example “Other income – government grants.” This makes the level of government support highly visible, which is often useful when the grant is one‑off, material, or of particular interest to investors and regulators.
Deduct from the related expense
Alternatively, if the grant directly compensates specific expenses such as wages, rent or R&D costs, the entity can deduct it from the related expense line. This shows the net burden borne by the entity and can make the cost structure look “cleaner.”
Take a common case: the entity receives a HKD 1 million R&D subsidy against total R&D costs of HKD 2 million for the year. If the grant is shown as other income, the statement of profit or loss might show R&D expenses of HKD 2 million and “Other income – government grant” of HKD 1 million. If instead it is netted against the expense, the R&D expense line would show only HKD 1 million.
From a tax perspective the result is usually similar, but the visual impact differs. When grants are large or politically sensitive, separate presentation as other income often supports better transparency; when the focus is on showing net cost levels, deducting from expenses can be appropriate. Whatever the choice, HKAS 20 / IAS 20 expects consistent application and clear disclosure of the policy.
5. Simple Case‑Style Entries to Tie Everything Together
Finally, it helps to see how the mechanics of HKAS 20 / IAS 20 play out in simplified entries, assuming “reasonable assurance” has been reached in each case.
- 1. Income‑related grant (spread over time)
- Government pays HKD 1 million each year to subsidise payroll.
- Each year, on receipt:
- Dr Bank 1,000,000
- Cr Deferred income 1,000,000
- Each year, on recognition:
- Dr Deferred income 1,000,000
- Cr Other income – government grant 1,000,000
- 2. Asset‑related grant (deferred income approach)
- Government funds HKD 3 million of machinery; useful life 5 years.
- On receipt:
- Dr Bank 3,000,000
- Cr Deferred income – government grant 3,000,000
- Each year:
- Dr Deferred income 600,000
- Cr Other income – government grant 600,000
- 3. Asset‑related grant (deduction from asset approach)
- Grant directly reduces the machine’s recognized cost from HKD 10 million to HKD 7 million.
- On acquisition:
- Dr Machinery 7,000,000
- Cr Bank 7,000,000
- Total depreciation over the asset’s life is lower because the cost base is smaller.
Across these examples, the theme is clear: HKAS 20 / IAS 20 is driven by matching, not by simple cash timing, and by transparent, consistent presentation choices.
Key Takeaways for Students and Junior Accountants
- Whenever you see “government support,” pause and ask: Is this compensating past losses (immediate) or future expenses (spread over time), and have we actually reached reasonable assurance yet?
- When drafting journal entries, always link grant recognition to specific costs or assets and document the logic: income‑related vs asset‑related, deferred income vs deduction, and the chosen presentation method.
- In exams and real‑life work, a common trap is recognising grants as income on a pure cash basis; practice explaining, in a few sentences, why this often breaches HKAS 20 / IAS 20 and HKAS 1 / IAS 1.
- When reviewing contracts, approval letters or government scheme terms, highlight timing and conditions clauses—these usually drive both recognition timing and whether the grant is treated as asset‑related or income‑related.
- In working papers, clearly state the policy choice (deferred income vs deduction for assets, other income vs expense reduction for income‑related grants) and keep it consistent across similar schemes; this is what seniors and auditors will look for.
If you’d like to ask me questions or chat about your learning, you can follow me on Threads / IG and send me a DM — I’ll reply as far as I can.
And if you feel these resources have helped you, you can also buy me a coffee to support me in writing more.
罔相心室: https://chinese.iamdelusionman.com/
Zero-to-Acct Substack: https://zerotoacct.substack.com/
Thread: https://www.threads.com/@yickki_mong
IG: https://www.instagram.com/yickki_mong/
