CHICAGO RIVET & MACHINE CO New Standards Disclosure
Recent Accounting Pronouncements.
Recently adopted. In December 2023, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. , Income Taxes (Topic 740): Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures, to enhance the transparency and decision usefulness of income tax disclosures providing investors with information to better assess how an entity’s operations and related tax risks and tax planning and operational opportunities affect its tax rate and prospects for future cash flows. The new guidance is effective for annual periods beginning after December 31, 2024. The Company adopted this ASU in 2025 prospectively. The impact of the adoption on our consolidated financial statements was not material and primarily resulted in new or enhanced disclosures only.
Not yet adopted. In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU No. 2024-03, Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income - Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40): Disaggregation of Income Statement Expenses, which requires disclosure in the notes to the financial statements of specified information about certain costs and expenses. In January 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2025-01, Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income - Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40), which amends the effective date of ASU 2024-03 to clarify that all public business entities are required to adopt the guidance in annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim periods within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2027. Early adoption of ASU 2024-03 is permitted. ASU 2024-03 should be applied either prospectively to financial statements issued for reporting periods after the effective date or retrospectively to any or all prior periods presented in the financial statements. The Company is currently evaluating the new guidance to determine the impact it may have on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, but expects only additional disclosures upon adoption.
In July 2025, the FASB issued ASU No. 2025-05, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Accounts Receivable and Contract Assets, to clarify the application of the current expected credit loss (“CECL”) model to trade accounts receivable and contract assets arising from revenue transactions. The amendments are intended to improve consistency and operability in measuring expected credit losses, including guidance on the use of historical loss information, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts. The new guidance is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2025 and interim reporting periods within those annual reporting periods. The Company is currently evaluating the new guidance to determine the impact it may have on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, but expects only additional disclosures upon adoption.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Mar 24, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Mar 28, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Mar 28, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Mar 29, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Mar 21, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Mar 19, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Mar 20, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Mar 20, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Mar 20, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Mar 20, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Mar 21, 2016 | |
About New Standards Disclosures
New accounting standards disclosures describe recently adopted pronouncements and those not yet effective, along with management's assessment of their expected impact. This section provides an early warning system for upcoming changes to how a company reports its financial results, often years before the new rules take effect.
Key signals: when management describes a not-yet-adopted standard's impact as "material" or "still being evaluated," it signals potential significant changes to reported metrics upon adoption. Watch for standards that affect a company's core operations — for example, revenue recognition changes for software companies or lease accounting changes for retailers with large store footprints. The transition method chosen (full retrospective versus modified retrospective) affects comparability with prior periods. Companies that delay adoption to the latest permitted date may be struggling with implementation complexity. Compare the disclosed impact assessments against peers in the same industry to gauge whether management's expectations are reasonable.