An asset recognition issue recently arising from accounting treatment of transactions in the government-regulated energy industry has evoked strong interest to among accounting practitioners and academicians in Korea. A public enterprise importing and supplying gas (or generating and supplying electricity) is not free to reflect in the rate (price) of its product the provision costs due to the government's regulation policy in Korea. The issue was whether the un-reflected portion of the costs should/can be recognized as an asset if it is probable to be reflected in the selling price in the future. When the price (rate) is regulated to be set below the costs, arises a delicate accounting problem: whether the regulated lessthan-cost price can be regarded as a normally acceptable price. If not, the seller,s revenue may have to be measured at a value higher than the regulated price, which includes a differential component to be recoverable in the future. Otherwise, the seller's revenue has to be measured at the regulated price and the differential component should not constitute sales revenue, but in this case still remains a question of what accounting treatment of the differential component should be made. Regarding these issues, this study will examine theoretical perspectives and similar cases in other countries, consider several alternatives and suggest the most reasonable approach.