A finished ACC-682 Topic 3 embedded lease completeness test example, screening a year of payments for lease-like patterns, applying the lease definition to 64 vendors and adding seven leases worth $3.4 million. Searches like "acc 682 topic 3 assignment example", "acc682 topic 3 sample" and "acc-682 topic 3 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-682 Topic 3 embedded lease completeness test looks like
The finished test first proves its population: 212,000 payable lines from 3,900 vendors, totaling $186.3 million and agreed to disbursements in the ledger, all figures illustrative. The screen flags every vendor outside the 41-lease register that received ten or more payments within 5 percent of one amount at regular intervals. It returns 64 vendors. Each contract is read against ASC 842's definition: an identified asset, and the right to obtain substantially all its economic benefits and to direct its use. Seven qualify, including a logistics contract for four trucks the bakery alone uses and a cold-storage agreement for a caged, specified section. Forty-nine are service arrangements, most because the supplier holds a substantive right to substitute the asset, and eight run twelve months or less under its short-term policy. The seven add $3.4 million of lease liabilities and right-of-use assets.
How an ACC-682 Topic 3 example is structured
The test is arranged so the population is settled before any contract is read. It opens with the reporting question, whether lease liabilities and their disclosures are complete, and why sampling contracts cannot answer it: a lease nobody recorded has no register entry to sample. The population section reconciles the payment extract to the ledger. A screening section states the pattern rule and its reasons, including why rent paid to landlords already in the register is excluded. The review section takes the 64 vendors one by one, with the contract clause that decided each. A reverse check follows, matching every register lease to payments, and it finds two terminated leases still carried, which are removed. The last section states the recognition entry, the effect on the maturity table and lease cost disclosure, and the control change that would catch the next embedded lease at signing.
Why a sample cannot find these
An unrecorded lease has no register entry, so a sample drawn from the register can never select it, and only a search of all payments can.
The extract agreed to the ledger
Payable lines totaling $186.3 million agree to disbursements in the general ledger, which shows the screen ran on the whole year rather than on part of it.
Substitution rights read clause by clause
Forty-nine flagged contracts fail the definition, mostly because the supplier can swap the asset at will and would benefit from doing so.
Seven leases found and measured
The dedicated trucks, the caged freezer section and five similar arrangements add $3.4 million to lease liabilities and right-of-use assets at recognition.
The register tested in reverse
Matching each register lease to its payments finds two that stopped months ago, so completeness and existence are both addressed before the note is updated.
Where marks go in ACC-682 Topic 3
Most of the credit is lost when the test samples the lease register, since that design cannot find the one kind of lease the topic is about. Papers that screen payments without agreeing the extract to the ledger may have searched part of the year and cannot say otherwise. Treating every flagged vendor as a lease confuses a payment pattern with the definition, and the 49 service contracts would inflate liabilities. The opposite error clears flagged vendors on their invoice descriptions, without reading the substitution and direction-of-use terms that decide the question. Analyses that find the seven leases and stop, with no entry, no updated maturity table and no word on lease cost, have done the analytics and skipped the reporting. A closing gap is the missing control: without a review at contract signing, next year's register starts incomplete again.
Get an ACC-682 Topic 3 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-682 Topic 3 instructions, your rubric and the payment data or case your section assigned. A custom example is written to them, with the population reconciled, a screening rule stated and justified, each flagged contract read against the lease definition, the register tested in reverse and the reporting effect drafted, back in 24 to 48 hours. First one free.
ACC-682 Topic 3 questions, answered
What makes a contract contain a lease under ASC 842?
An identified asset, specified explicitly or implicitly, and the customer's right to control its use for a period: obtaining substantially all of its economic benefits and directing how and for what purpose it is used. A supplier's substantive right to substitute the asset defeats identification. The label on the contract does not decide it, which is why service agreements can hold leases.
Why screen payments instead of contracts?
Because payments are complete in a way the contract files are not. Every arrangement that costs money leaves a trail in disbursements, reconciled to the ledger, while contracts can sit in departmental drawers or an email inbox. The payment pattern only nominates candidates; reading the contract still decides each one. The screen is how the whole population gets examined at a cost the close can absorb.
Is this the auditor's completeness test?
No, though an auditor might run something similar. Here the company's own reporting team performs it before the statements are issued, because the preparer is responsible for a complete lease register and a correct note. The example therefore ends with an entry, a revised disclosure and a new control at contract signing, rather than with a finding communicated to management.