We have a participation agreement with a seller, in which we buy the product from them, and then we sell it. You are entitled to 50% of the turnover, which will then be reduced by the cost of the product we bought. Ex: We sell 40k widgets for which we paid 5k. We owe them 40k x 50% less than 5k, or 15k. How is this going to be recorded? My thought is, it should be the bill they send us would be COGS for 15k, is that true or would it be a reduction in turnover? In addition, we have sales commissions for these products, for which it seems that rep commissions should be reduced. Sounds good? I`ve been looking for articles and all that, and there`s nothing I can do. Revenue sharing can also be done within a single organization. Profits and operating losses can be distributed to stakeholders and general or business partners. As with revenue-sharing models that involve more than one company, the interior of these plans generally requires contractual agreements between all parties involved. ERISA distributes the revenues from pension plan sponsorships, so that a portion of the income collected by the investment funds would be kept in an expense account. This credit is intended to cover the management and management costs of plans 401 (k). The amount to be allocated and paid into the revenue-sharing accounts is set out in the revenue-sharing agreement.
The agent must inform investors of how the revenue is spent, which ensures transparency. No matter what you decide at the end, ask your listener. In general, they are the expert (on what they will decide later) Personally, I see it as a COGS. It is a variable cog, but it is the COGS. It is not similar to Contingent Rent (this is not counter-revenue … it`s rent). Some types of revenue sharing are strictly regulated by public authorities. In 2007, the Advisory Council of the Workers` Income Security Act established the Working Group on Revenue Distribution Obligations and Practices to address perceived problems related to the practice of revenue allocation for Plans 401 (k).
The working group found that revenue sharing was an acceptable practice and new transparency rules were implemented under the authority of the Ministry of Labour. The working group also decided to take the lead in formally defining revenue sharing for defined contribution schemes. Revenue sharing takes many different forms, although each iteration involves the distribution of profits or operating losses among associated financial players.