Topics Tools Blog 5-Step Guide →

Principal vs. Agent

Whether you report gross revenue or net revenue depends on one question: do you control the goods or service before it reaches your customer?

Educational content only. This page is not professional accounting advice. Consult a qualified accountant before making accounting policy decisions for your company.

When a transaction involves three parties — you, a third-party supplier, and your customer — you have to determine whether you are the principal (reporting gross revenue) or the agent (reporting only your fee or commission as net revenue). The dollar impact can be enormous, and for any SaaS company with a marketplace, reseller channel, or bundled third-party services, this analysis is non-optional.

Why It Matters

Consider a $1,000 transaction where you pay a third-party provider $700 and keep $300. As a principal, you report $1,000 of revenue and $700 of cost of revenue — 30% gross margin. As an agent, you report $300 of revenue and no COGS line for the pass-through — 100% gross margin on that $300. The bottom line is the same, but gross margin, revenue growth, and valuation multiples look very different. Investors, lenders, and auditors all care about the distinction.

The Control Test

Both ASC 606 (paragraphs 606-10-55-36 through 55-40) and IFRS 15 (paragraphs B34–B38) use a single overarching test: does the entity control the specified good or service before it is transferred to the customer?

Control means having the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the good or service. If you control it before transfer — you are the principal. If you arrange for the third party to transfer it — you are the agent.

Indicators of Control (Principal)

The standards provide three main indicators that a company controls the good or service and is therefore a principal:

These are indicators, not a checklist. All three point to principal status, but you might have principal status without all three. The weight of evidence matters. The control test drives the conclusion; the indicators support it.

Working Example: SaaS Marketplace Platform

Consider a SaaS company that operates a platform where third-party software integrations are available. Customers purchase integrations through the platform at prices set by the platform company.

Scenario A — Curated Marketplace with Control

The platform sets the retail price (e.g., $99/month for a Salesforce integration). It collects payment, manages customer support for billing and access issues, handles refunds, and bears the risk if the third-party provider has an outage — the customer's SLA is with the platform, not the provider. The platform pays the third-party a revenue share ($70/month) after collecting from the customer.

Principal. Report gross revenue of $99, COGS of $70. The platform controls the customer experience, sets prices independently, is primarily responsible to the customer, and bears performance risk.

Scenario B — Pass-Through App Store

The platform hosts third-party integrations but the third-party sets the price, handles all customer support, and the platform simply processes payment and takes a 20% transaction fee. The third-party is the primary contact for service issues; the platform just facilitates discovery and billing.

Agent. Report net revenue of $19.80 (20% of $99). The platform arranges the transaction but does not control the integration before transfer. The third-party remains primarily responsible for delivery.

Scenario C — Reseller Channel

An enterprise SaaS company resells a third-party data enrichment service as part of its platform bundle. It buys blocks of API credits at wholesale prices, bundles them into its own subscription, sets the customer-facing price, and is the only point of contact for customers. If the enrichment service is down, the platform vendor is liable under the customer's MSA.

Principal. Report gross on the bundled price. The SaaS company controls the API credits before transfer (inventory risk), sets the price (pricing discretion), and bears primary obligation to the customer.

The App Store Case: A Common Gray Area

App stores (like Salesforce AppExchange, AWS Marketplace, Shopify App Store) create a genuinely contested gray area. Whether the marketplace operator is principal or agent depends on:

Most large app store operators conclude they are agents and report net revenue (their platform fee or take rate). But a marketplace that sets prices, bundles third-party apps into a curated suite, and takes primary responsibility for delivery may be a principal for at least a portion of those arrangements.

IFRS 15 vs. ASC 606

Largely aligned. Both use the control test as the primary driver and the same three indicators (primary obligation, inventory risk, pricing discretion). Differences are presentational, not conceptual.

Primary framework
IFRS 15

IFRS 15.B34–B38: control test + indicators. Entity controls the good/service before transfer = principal.

ASC 606

ASC 606-10-55-36 through 55-40: identical control test + same three indicators. Practical in application.

Order of analysis
IFRS 15

IFRS 15.B35: determine what the specified good or service is first — then apply the control test to that specified good/service.

ASC 606

ASC 606-10-55-36A (post-2016 amendment): same two-step approach — identify the specified good/service, then test control.

Indicator language
IFRS 15

IFRS 15.B37: three indicators listed as supporting evidence; no individual indicator is determinative.

ASC 606

ASC 606-10-55-39: same three indicators. SEC registrants receive additional interpretive guidance in Staff Accounting Bulletins.

Common Pitfalls
  1. Defaulting to "agent" because there's a third-party involved. Many companies assume any arrangement with a third-party supplier makes them an agent. The control test doesn't care about legal form — it cares about who controls the good or service. If you own the customer relationship, set the price, and bear the delivery risk, you are likely a principal regardless of the supply chain structure.
  2. Confusing legal title with control. You do not need to physically hold inventory or hold legal title to control a good. A company that takes on the primary obligation to deliver a service — and bears the consequences if the third party fails — may control that service even without touching it. The standard explicitly notes that control "does not necessarily mean legal ownership."
  3. Inconsistent application across similar arrangements. Companies often have multiple types of third-party arrangements and apply the test differently without realizing it. A single-standard analysis across all third-party revenue streams is essential for consistent disclosure and audit support.
  4. Failing to reassess when arrangements change. If your marketplace evolves — you start guaranteeing SLAs, you begin setting prices rather than letting third parties set them, or you start handling refunds — the principal/agent analysis can flip. Changes to the economics of a distribution arrangement require a fresh assessment, not a carryforward assumption.
Key Takeaway

The principal vs. agent determination is one of the highest-stakes judgment calls in revenue recognition for platform and marketplace companies. Gross vs. net presentation directly affects revenue, gross margin, and how investors read the business. The control test cuts through the complexity: does your company control the good or service before it reaches the customer? If yes, report gross. If you're arranging for someone else to deliver it, report net. Run the test on each distinct arrangement — not on the company's overall model — and document the indicators that support your conclusion.


Free Resource

5-Step Revenue Recognition Guide

Work through IFRS 15 and ASC 606 step by step with real SaaS examples.

Start the guide
Browse All Topics

More Application Guidance

Explore more deep dives on specific IFRS 15 and ASC 606 concepts.

All topics
Free Tool

27-Point Audit Checklist

Ensure your revenue recognition is audit-ready before your next close.

See the checklist
Free Tool

Revenue Memo Template

A 7-section auditor-ready memo documenting your revenue recognition policy.

Get the template