Standardized chart of Accounts

The IASB (link) and FASB (link) do not discuss the COA. To fill the void, we have been publishing IFRS and US GAAP compatible COAs since 2010.

There is no shortage of COAs presented on various web pages or by various consultants.

For example, Googling "chart of accounts template" brings up a myriad of results:

The final two examples, German and French COAs, are prescribed by law. They are identical for every entity regardless of software vendor.

The remainder are from vendors in countries where law does not mandate a specific COA (which also explains why they are not particularly good).

Usually, a company's management may decide what works best and simply go with that.

Or they can simply use the default COAs supplied with small business software packages available in practically every country that can generate national GAAP financial statements together with an XML-tagged, tax return in seconds.

Engineering a fully IFRS compatible COA is overkill, like using a Fendt 1050 Vario to dig up a garden.

However, the freedom dissipates when a COA must be robust enough to conform to IFRS (link) | GAAP (link) recognition, measurement, and reporting requirements, particularly if the resulting report is to be submitted to an ESMA-supervised regulator, the FRC, ASIC, AFRC, etc.

While generally comparable, IFRS and US GAAP do not provide identical guidance.

Thus, while this COA may be used for dual reporting purposes, adjustments will be necessary! It is not possible to simply run the generate IFRS statements or generate GAAP statements scripts using the identical COA.

Adjustments must be made.

This page illustrates most common differences between IFRS and US GAAP and should be read carefully before attempting to use this COA for dual reporting and/or consolidation purposes.

IFRS approaches accounting from a reporting-focused perspective, with emphasis on recognition, measurement, and financial statement presentation and disclosure. As such, it does not prescribe bookkeeping procedures or a standard chart of accounts. Entities operating in jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, China, India, etc. may generally define any COA provided it yields a financial report consistent with IFRS guidance.

Nevertheless, as designing a workable COA is a time consuming and laborious process, many entities prefer to use an off-the-self version particularly if it can be, with minimal effort, adjusted to reflect the entity’s financial structure.

US GAAP approaches accounting from a reporting-focused perspective, with emphasis on recognition, measurement, and financial statement presentation and disclosure. As such, it does not prescribe bookkeeping procedures or a standard chart of accounts. Entities operating in the United States may define any COA provided it yields a financial report consistent with US GAAP guidance.

Nevertheless, as designing a workable COA is a time consuming and laborious process, many entities prefer to use an off the self-version particularly if it can be, with minimal effort be adjusted to reflects the entity’s financial structure.

IFRS and US GAAP approach accounting from a reporting-focused rather than procedural perspective. As such, neither define nor prescribe a standard charts of account. In many jurisdictions, e.g., the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, China or India, a comparable approach is used.

By contrast, the accounting legislation of various European Union member states (such as France, Belgium or Luxembourg) defines a COA, compulsory for bookkeeping purposes. Internationally, rigid accounting structures are somewhat less common, found in jurisdictions such as Russia, OHADA member states or (for state enterprises) Nigeria.

Thus, the COAs presented here should only be used in jurisdictions where their use does not conflict with local legislation.

Note: some jurisdictions allow or require public interest entities to apply IFRS alongside or in place of national GAAP. In such jurisdictions, the COAs presented here may be used for IFRS purposes provided they do not conflict with other legislation.

As a general rule, only publicly traded entities have a formal obligation to apply IFRS or US GAAP guidance. As such, their accounting system must be robust enough to fulfill the extensive recognition and measurement guidance outlined in these standards.

Non-public entities in jurisdictions that do not mandate accounting practices have more flexibility and may elect to use any structure they choose. Nevertheless, a sound account structure will help any business, regardless of size, optimize its operational efficiency and fuel data-driven decision-making. Equally important, it allows the entity to fulfill the tax reporting obligation shared by all entities, regardless of size or ownership structure.

Since the IFRS SME standard | ASC non-public entity guidance is the backbone of accounting for all entities (except the smallest), COAs that reflect this guidance are useful to all entities even when they do not have a formal, IFRS or US GAAP reporting obligation.

As anyone who has ever started a business knows, starting a business is the easy part. Keeping it running smoothly and profitably is where the real challenge lies. To help those just starting out, this site publishes workable, basic COAs, that can be expanded as needed, free of charge. After all, every business that survives the startup phase makes the business community richer and more diverse so is in everyone's best interest.

The advanced version is suitable for a single, large entity as well as a group of entities. The expanded version is a multi-dimensional COA designed for more complicated entities. The XBRL cross-referenced version is designed for publicly traded entities that face the task of drafting machine-readable financial reports required by some regulators.

A guide on how to set up the COA to serve various roles is presented on the implementation guidance page below.

Data can be loaded into an ERP in various ways (SQL, APIs, migration tools), but Excel remains the lingua franca of accounting, immediately understandable to virtually everyone. As illustrated on the implementation guide page (link), a COA may be flat or multidimensional, set up to handle multiple sub‑ledgers or to include additional metadata.

To simplify the process of creating an ERP training file, Pro View includes a Python script that illustrates how to generate a dynamic hierarchical COA from the Excel source file, with posting and summation accounts defined automatically and, more importantly, flexibly. It also includes scripts to map the output to balance sheet and P&L in IFRS or US GAAP format (also in Excel).

Additional guidance on how to implement a COA is provided on this page.

As outlined in IFRS 16.47.a.i, an ROU should be classified like the underlying asset if that asset were owned (unless the ROU is presented separately). Thus, the right to use, for example, a building, would be presented in PP&E while the right to use a patent would be intangible (below).

While the ASC does not provide similarly explicit guidance, the FASB-defined XBRL taxonomy includes PropertyPlantAndEquipmentAndFinanceLeaseRightOfUseAssetAfterAccumulatedDepreciationAndAmortizationAbstract.

This implies that an ROU associated with an underlying asset that is PP&E should be recognized as PP&E.

Since the guidance provided by the ASC (specifically 842-20-45-1 through 3) does not preclude presenting an ROU within PP&E, this account would be consistent with that guidance.

Note: the guidance also allows an ROU to be disclosed in the footnotes rather than being reported on the balance sheet. To distinguish, for example, an owned building from a leased building, metadata (the expanded COA) should be added to the item.

A right to use an asset is a contractual right. Thus, the right-to-use asset (ROU) is, strictly speaking, always intangible. Nevertheless, as outlined in IFRS 16.47.a.i, an ROU should be classified (unless it is presented separately) in the same way as the underlying asset if it were owned. Thus, an ROU of a building would be presented in PP&E (above) while an ROU of a patent would be presented here.

Since ASC 842-20-45-1 and 2 do not preclude recognizing the right to use an intangible asset as an ROU within intangible assets (provided financial and operating ROUs are not mixed as outlined in ASC 842-20-45-3) it would not be incorrect to recognize those ROUs here.

Note: the guidance also allows an ROU to be disclosed in the footnotes rather than being reported on the balance sheet. To distinguish, for example, an owned patent from a leased patent, metadata (the expanded COA) should be added to the item.

While crypto assets have more in common with financial assets than intangible assets, ASC 350-60-15-1.a defines: a. Meet the definition of intangible assets as defined in the Codification ... d. Are secured through cryptography... The 2026 FASB-approved XBRL taxonomy (link) likewise places CryptoAssetFairValue on the balance sheet as a separate line item directly below intangible assets and above right-of-use assets.

For its part, the 2026 FASB-approved XBRL taxonomy (link) places both FinanceLeaseRightOfUseAsset and OperatingLeaseRightOfUseAsset following intangible asset and immediately following crypto assets. This suggests the FASB would prefer if ROAs were classified as intangible.

IFRS does not specifically discuss Crypto but the IFRIC (June 2019 agenda decision) concludes that typical cryptocurrencies meet the definition of an intangible asset under IAS 38, unless they are held for sale in the ordinary course of business, in which case IAS 2 (inventories) applies.

The 2026 XBRL version has been updated with cross-references to the 2026 FASB issued XBRL taxonomy.

A version reflecting the 2026 IFRS taxonomy will be posted once the IASB releases its update.

The COA published on this page may be republished provided the following citation is provided:

Source: https://www.ifrs-gaap.com/chart-accounts.