He noted that, in the revenue recognition standard, revenue is booked when the conditions for that revenue have been met. For example, Apple books revenue when it has sold a phone. It doesn't matter who bought the phone or what the phone is used for. The only question is whether the entity (Apple) fulfilled the promise (to give someone a phone) in exchange for consideration. 

In the case of a nonprofit receiving a grant from the government or some other entity, "you've committed to do something that, in many cases, are measurable. So at what point did you do it, and did you meet the expectations?" he said. 

Finally, he said that since the standard came out, he has noticed entities getting "hung up on the word 'contribution'" due to the aforementioned train of thought that governments do not make contributions. "So they got hung up on semantics" due to its association with words like 'donation' or 'gift.'" But he noted that the word "contribution" has a clear definition in accounting literature already: it is simply a voluntary transaction (as opposed to paying taxes) that is nonreciprocal, performed by an entity existing as an owner. 

"So if you don't like the word 'contribution,' think of it as nonexchange or nonreciprocal," he said. "We don't expect people to suddenly all call these things 'contributions.' You can still use words like 'grants' or 'contracts' or whatever."