Well, accounting standards don't really "stop there," I would say. They continue to identify "verifiable" as the appropriate standard, as far as I know. This is from Not-for-Profit Entities (Topic 958) :
958-605-55-19 Pursuant to paragraph 958-605-25-8, to be recognized in financial statements there must be sufficient evidence in the form of verifiable documentation that a promise to give was made and received. That requirement does not preclude recognition of verifiable oral promises, such as those documented by tape recordings, written registers, or other means that permit subsequent verification.
Not a word about legally enforceable. Rather than "the intention to give contained in that communication is legally enforceable" what it says is "sufficient evidence in the form of verifiable documentation that a promise to give was made and received."
Verifiable rather than verified is an important distinction. There is not a requirement that the verification needs to have been done for every unconditional promise to give, let alone establishing legal enforceability for every pledge.
As you say, legal enforceability only comes into play extremely rarely, in cases like a university commencing on construction on the strength of a pledge (which is exactly the detrimental reliance basis for legal enforceability). That legal enforceability so rarely comes into play is exactly why no nonprofit that I've ever heard of makes any effort to establish it except (possibly) in a handful of cases.
If you want to say that "verifiable" and "legally enforceable" are "essentially the same thing," oh-kay. I think that if they meant legally enforceable they could have said that, and, again, I've never seen a charitable organization run any sort of review to establish legal enforceability except in extremely unusual circumstances.
My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.
Good luck!
Alan
Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)
Data Quality Manager
