This chart of accounts is suitable for use with IFRS, US GAAP ⚠ and comparable standards.
Since the oft advised approach to COA design is sub-optimal, this page uses a more robust approach.
For example, one renowned accounting software producer introduces their COA this way.
A promising start.
The detail put into a COA does set the ceiling for financial analysis. If the COA does not capture a data point, it will not make it to a financial report. A well-structured COA will support accurate, compliant financial statements and misclassified accounts can distort key metrics, trigger audits and make correctly applying complex guidance, especially guidance promulgated by the IASB or FASB, practically impossible.
But, when it pivots to the challenges, it becomes self-contradictory.
The page correctly points out that “a well‑structured COA supports accurate, compliant reporting.” But then points to overcomplication suggesting that "A chart of accounts can become unnecessarily complex if it contains too many categories and subcategories."
However, an oversimplified COA does not make details go away. It simply moves them off the COA, which is precisely where inconsistencies, misclassification occur and remain hidden until discovered by an auditor or, with more dire consequences, regulator.
Then comes the second contradiction.
The oversimplification mantra does nothing to address "Inconsistent naming and coding [that] can cause staff to interpret accounts in different, unintended ways."
Quite the opposite. It encourages, perhaps even forces, junior accounting staff, the staff least qualified to make the recognition and measurement to make recognition and measurement decisions.
Finally, it drops these pearls of wisdom.
While a provider of cloud-based accounting software can be forgiven for implying that only cloud-based accounting software will facilitate dimensionality, why would it encourage the use of ad hoc subledgers to plug holes in a poorly designed COA when it does nothing to address one of the challenges it discussed earlier?
Why would renowned accounting software producer provide such substandard advice?
Perhaps, as a producer of accounting software, it bears no responsibility for how that software is employed and selling a seemingly simple and carefree solution to a complex and intractable problem helps sell more software. Or, perhaps, we are just being cynical.
In any event, fortunately, accountants have judgment which they are free to use in any way they deem reasonable.
So while accounting software producers are free to suggest using such a primitive account structure while allowing staff to add willy nilly, ad hoc accounts, the chief accountant is free to just say no.
Specifically, the systemic risk that software vendors often choose to ignore: if the COA does not have a slot for a non-negotiable accounting rule, that rule has to be managed manually. From an AI/Data perspective, manual workarounds are dirty data. From an accounting perspective, they are internal control deficiencies. Deficiencies that in a high stakes environment such as SOX compliance can lead to very serious consequences.
The Simplicity trap: why "lean" charts of account are an internal control failure
Modern ERP implementation guidance frequently advocates for a "simplified" or "lean" COA. The argument is that fewer accounts reduce complexity and user error. We argue the opposite: oversimplification in the G/L does not eliminate complexity. It merely decentralizes it. By removing the granular "forced-choice" mechanism of a well-designed COA, organizations inadvertently delegate high-level technical accounting decisions to junior staff, increasing the risk of misclassification, reconciliation failure and audit non-compliance.
- The fallacy of the "clean" ledger
The push for a lean COA is often driven by a desire for aesthetic "cleanliness" in financial reporting. However, accounting requirements (IFRS, US GAAP, and Local Statutory) remain inherently complex. When a COA is stripped of specific categories, the data does not vanish. Instead, it migrates:
- Unstructured sub-ledgers: where data governance is weak and compliance overlooked.
- Manual spreadsheets: the shadow ledgers that haunt year-end reconciliations.
- Ambiguous dimensions: where proper classification is ignored to facilitate high-volume data entry.
- The COA as control mechanism
A granular COA is more than a list of accounts. It is a preventative control.- Forced technical decisions: if a junior accountant is presented with 40 possible classifications related to employee benefits, they will make absolutely certain they pick the correct one particularly if they know that if the "Other employee related accruals" balance exceeds 1% of all employee benefits, serious questions will be asked.
- The escalation trigger: if a junior accountant is presented with 40 possible classifications related to employee benefits, they will make absolutely certain they check before classifying a particular item incorrectly. If they are not certain, they will ask. That is normal. That is how junior staff become senior staff. Note: if they ask the same question twice, it is a good indication that junior staff should, without delay, become former junior staff. This is how compliance is actually achieved.
- The Multi-jurisdictional issues
For global entities, simplification is an executive luxury that creates a subsidiary nightmare. Local statutory requirements (such as the French Plan Comptable) demand an approach that is different from the IFRS report submitted to stakeholders in London or a US GAAP report for the minority shareholders who acquired their stake on the New York Stock Exchange. At some point, local teams must know when a G/L item can be plugged into a reporting package, when it must be adjusted before being plugged in and, most importantly, when it cannot be adjusted at all, but must be completely re-recognized and remeasured. Unambiguous accounts with unambiguous titles (and XBRL tags) go a long way to making these distinctions clear - Dimensions and determinants
Some dimensions (e.g. FVOCI or FVNI, the currency in which monetary assets are denominated, accumulated depreciation or amortization or depletion or even impairment, the function of an expense, etc.) are crucial for IFRS | GAAP compliance and should be hard wired. Other dimensions (department, customer type, geographic region, etc.) are nice to have, but will not cause an audit report to become qualified. Having a COA clearly shows each new hire where that line is simply makes both compliance and operations management simpler.
Instead of the traditional approach to account identification, a hierarchical, delimited scheme is used.
For example, Googling "chart of accounts" brings up results such as these:
Most strictly adhere to the same, flat block structure that should have disappeared along with green eyeshades but, for some inexplicable reason, continues to hang on. Probably just sheer force of will or (as with the last two examples) legislative mandate.
The COA from Investopedia does take a baby step towards modernity by introducing one delimitation. But then it gets frightened by all that innovation and scurries back to the way it has always been done ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
However, adopting a flexible, expandable approach and then using it unwisely is likely to be much worse.
In this article (link / archive), the author makes some good points but, unfortunately, misses the big picture.
For example, 5,000 accounts does seem like bloat , but only if accounts are created for the wrong reason. While the snippet does not allow a drill down so may just be a case or careless labeling, adding individual fixed assets to a COA will certainly cause bloat. This information does not belong on a COA or in even a G/L. It belongs in a dedicated subledger comprising, for example all light-duty trucks (as opposed to heavy duty-trucks which, as a rule, have different lives).
Fortunately, the author then goes on to clearly identify the real culprit.
Without any doubt, allowing just any manager to add an ad hoc account unsystematically without any planning or forethought is certain to guarantee of a bloated, unworkable COA. A COA best deleted before it leads to consequences (such as a qualified audit report, or regulatory enforcement action, or, in a SOX reporting environment, something potentially much more severe).
Specifically, it is a Chief accountant's job to ensure proper controls over the company’s fundamental accounting structure. While this may seem like recipe for centralized inflexible accounting, allowing managers to add accounts willy-nilly, particularly managers at international subsidiaries whose working knowledge of local legislation and local enforcement is likely much more thorough than their knowledge of IFRS | US GAAP and the compliance demands of regulators such as the SEC, FSA, FCA, AMF or BaFin is worse.
A CFO’s job is to plan, budget, and forecast. More importantly, it is to maintain a working relationship with important creditors and represent the company to investors. Delegating the actual, day-to-day task of making certain the company's accounts not only provide managers with the information they need but facilitate IFRS | US GAAP compliant financial reports to professionals explicitly trained and experienced in these matters, is probably the more rational choice. In other words, CFOs are usually not particularly good accountants. Accountants are good accountants.
This also implies that taking professional advice from a site aimed at the former tends to not be as effective as taking it from one aimed at the latter.
Note: as the script on this page (link) illustrates, account numbering optional. The hierarchy itself dictates structure.
Vague COAs requiring ad hoc subledgers may even be dangerous.
A frequently repeated recommendation (discussed above) is to keep the chart of accounts as simple and high-level as possible, and to “push detail” into subledgers or dimensions when needed. In theory, this keeps the general ledger tidy. In practice, especially in international groups, it often produces the opposite of what good accounting requires: inconsistency, inaccuracy, and loss of control.
The problem is structural. If the COA is overly general and staff are allowed to create subledgers ad hoc, the system as a whole becomes fragmented. Each accountant, department, or subsidiary can develop its own unofficial structure under the same top-level accounts. Over time, what appears to be a single, consistent account in group reporting actually represents a patchwork of different local practices and interpretations.
This is particularly acute in cross-border groups. Consider a US parent that gives its foreign subsidiary a rudimentary US GAAP reporting package with a handful of broad lines to fill out. The subsidiary completes the package to keep the parent satisfied, even when the mapping from local GAAP to those broad US GAAP categories is approximate at best. If local staff are also free to “solve” gaps by building their own subledgers and coding schemes, the risk is that the reported numbers look acceptable on the surface, but are structurally wrong underneath.
The less familiar local staff are with IFRS or US GAAP, the greater this risk becomes. Giving them wide latitude to modify the underlying structure through subledgers and custom codes is effectively delegating COA design to the people least equipped to do it. The very issues many experts warn about—“inconsistent naming and coding” causing reconciliation problems, reporting gaps, and trouble rolling up results across departments or entities—are made worse, not better, by vague COAs plus ungoverned subledgers.
A detailed, well-designed chart of accounts is the opposite of unnecessary complexity. It is a control instrument. By defining accounts precisely and structuring them carefully, the entity reduces the scope for arbitrary local interpretation, makes mappings from local GAAP to IFRS | US GAAP repeatable and auditable, and limits the need for improvised substructures that nobody fully understands. In this context, “detail” is not a problem to be hidden in subledgers; it is the means by which the entity protects itself against quiet, systemic misclassification in its financial reporting.
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.
The IASB and FASB do not prescribe, define, or provide a standardized COA for organizations to follow. Instead, it focuses on high-level recognition, measurement and reporting principles and guidelines. Nevertheless:
- IFRS emphasizes how financial information is reported in financial statements, not the specific procedural steps, like account naming conventions, used in a company's internal bookkeeping.
- Organizations are free to create a chart of accounts tailored to their specific operational needs, provided the resulting financial reports comply with IFRS | US GAAP requirements.
- While they do not provide a list, the IFRS and US GAAP require that the financial data captured by the chart of accounts adheres to principles like consistency, materiality and proper classification.
- A chart of accounts for a manufacturer will differ from one for a service provider. However each must reflect the same, basic accounting guidance.
Our first COA was designed for IFRS.
In 2009, a client was not satisfied with the answer "the IASB does not publish a COA" saying "I don't care; I want one."
Many European Union member states have local legislation that prescribes a mandated chart of accounts. Practitioners accustomed to such accounting systems were looking for a similar, standard structure to use in an IFRS context. However, the IASB focuses on principles-based guidance and delegates the procedural aspects of accounting to practitioners, so has never included a COA in IFRS.
Companies must thus either design one themselves, or use an off-the-shelf version, such as posted here.
Since the client is always right, we created one.
Then, as recycling is good for the planet, we published a sanitized, generic version on this site. Within months, the IFRS COA became our most visited page. After we published a GAAP COA, it became our most visited page. Since most entities apply either IFRS or GAAP, the standardized, universal COA has always brought up the rear, though Wikipedia does like it.
While comparable, IFRS and US GAAP do not provide identical guidance.
Although this COA is suitable for dual reporting purposes, adjustments are mandatory!
It is not reasonable to simply run the generate IFRS statements | generate GAAP statements scripts on an unadjusted trial balance and expect results compliant with both IFRS | US GAAP guidance.
The illustrative example section discusses and illustrates the most pertinent differences between IFRS and US GAAP.
It should be studied carefully before any attempt to use this COA as the basis for dual reporting 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.
For example, French accounting standard Art. 947-70 (view pdf) states: "… Les montants des ventes, des prestations de services, des produits afférents aux activités annexes sont enregistrés au crédit des comptes 701 "Ventes de produits finis", 702 "Ventes de produits intermédiaires", 703 "Ventes de produits résiduels", 704 "Travaux", 705 "Études", 706 "Prestations de services", 707 "Ventes de marchandises" et 708 "Produits des activités annexes"."
Deviating from the defined COA would thus not be permissible for French bookkeeping purposes.
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.
For example, in the Czech Republic, the Accounting Act 563/1991 paragraph §19a (1) states:
"An [unconsolidated] entity that is a trading company and is an issuer of investment securities admitted to trading on a European regulated market shall apply international accounting standards regulated by European Union law (hereinafter referred to as "international accounting standards") for accounting and the preparation of financial statements" [paragraph § 23a requires IFRS at the consolidated entity level].
This implies, if the COA presented here is used for IFRS bookkeeping purposes and IFRS recognition guidance is applied correctly, it may (implicitly) be used in place of the chart of accounts mandated by the same law but only by a trading company (consolidated entity) that is an issuer of investment securities admitted to trading on a European regulated market.
Nevertheless, the Income Tax Act 586/1992 §23 (2) states:
"The tax base is determined a) from the net income (profit or loss), always without the influence of International Accounting Standards, for taxpayers required to maintain accounts. A taxpayer that prepares financial statements in accordance with International Accounting Standards regulated by European Community shall apply for the purposes of this Act to determine net income and to determine other data decisive for determining the tax base a special legal regulation [CZ GAAP]). When determining the tax base, entries in off-balance sheet account books are not taken into account, unless otherwise provided in this Act. ..."
Thus, since Czech accounting law assumes the mandated chart of accounts will be used for accounting purposes, if a different chart of accounts is used, it will need to yield the same result as if the mandated chart of accounts were used. While this is not impossible with careful mapping and associated adjustments, it is generally more practical to use the mandated national GAAP COA for Czech accounting and taxation purposes, and a separate IFRS compatible COA for IFRS recognition, measurement, reporting, and disclosure purposes.
The basic COA is suitable for a small business and freely available.
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.
Businesses whose accounting consists of tracking cash flow so they can report income to a tax authority have no need for a COA or any formal accounting system. Their accounting needs may be met by simply adding up their (taxable) cash receipts, and subtracting their (tax deductible) disbursements.
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 expert COAs may be used by businesses of any size and also available in Excel format.
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).
Implementation guidance
Additional guidance on how to implement a COA is provided on this page.
Basic standardized COA or go to Excel download page in Pro.
| Account title | Account # | Depth | Balance | 1 |
| Assets | 1 | 0 | Dr | 2 |
| Cash and financial assets | 1.1 | 1 | Dr | 3 |
| Cash and cash equivalents | 1.1.1 | 2 | Dr | 4 |
| Financial assets and investments | 1.1.2 | 2 | Dr | 5 |
| Receivables and contracts | 1.2 | 1 | Dr | 6 |
| Accounts, notes and loans receivable | 1.2.1 | 2 | Dr | 7 |
| Contracts with customers | 1.2.2 | 2 | Dr | 8 |
| Nontrade and other receivables | 1.2.3 | 2 | Dr | 9 |
| Inventory | 1.3 | 1 | Dr | 10 |
| Merchandise | 1.3.1 | 2 | Dr | 11 |
| Raw material, parts and supplies | 1.3.2 | 2 | Dr | 12 |
| Work in process | 1.3.3 | 2 | Dr | 13 |
| Finished goods | 1.3.4 | 2 | Dr | 14 |
| Other inventory | 1.3.5 | 2 | Dr | 15 |
| Accruals and additional assets | 1.4 | 1 | Dr | 16 |
| Prepaid expense | 1.4.1 | 2 | Dr | 17 |
| Accrued income | 1.4.2 | 2 | Dr | 18 |
| Service provider work in process (classified as accrual) | 1.4.3 | 2 | Dr | 19 |
| Additional assets | 1.4.4 | 2 | Dr | 20 |
| Property, plant and equipment | 1.5 | 1 | Dr | 21 |
| Land and land improvements | 1.5.1 | 2 | Dr | 22 |
| Buildings, structures and improvements | 1.5.2 | 2 | Dr | 23 |
| Machinery and equipment | 1.5.3 | 2 | Dr | 24 |
| Furniture and fixtures | 1.5.4 | 2 | Dr | 25 |
| Right of use assets (Classified as PP&E) | 1.5.5 | 2 | Dr | 26 |
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: provided the right-of-use asset is recognised on the balance sheet, the guidance is flexible about how it is presented. For example, a leased building may be presented within the “Buildings” line item rather than on a separate “right-of-use asset” line, as long as the notes explain that the amount relates to a leased (right-of-use) building rather than an owned building. From an internal accounting perspective, the building could thus be posted either to the Buildings account with a metadata flag indicating that it is an ROU or to the ROU account with metadata describing the underlying asset as a building.
| Additional property, plant and equipment | 1.5.6 | 2 | Dr | 27 |
| Agricultural biological assets | 1.5.7 | 2 | Dr | 28 |
| Construction in progress | 1.5.8 | 2 | Dr | 29 |
| Intangible assets excluding goodwill | 1.6 | 1 | Dr | 30 |
| Intellectual property | 1.6.1 | 2 | Dr | 31 |
| Computer software | 1.6.2 | 2 | Dr | 32 |
| Trade and distribution assets | 1.6.3 | 2 | Dr | 33 |
| Contracts and rights | 1.6.4 | 2 | Dr | 34 |
| Right of Use Assets | 1.6.5 | 2 | Dr | 35 |
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: provided the right-of-use asset is recognised on the balance sheet, the guidance is flexible about how it is presented. For example, a leased patent may be presented within the “Patents” group or as a standalone "Patent" rather than as a separate “right-to-use patent” item, as long as the notes explain that the amount relates to a leased (right-of-use) asset rather than an owned asset. From an internal accounting perspective, a patent could thus be posted either to the Patents account, with a metadata flag indicating that it is an ROU, or to an ROU account, with metadata describing the underlying asset as a patent.
| Crypto assets | 1.6.6 | 2 | Dr | 36 |
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) concluded 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.
| Additional intangible assets | 1.6.7 | 2 | Dr | 37 |
| Acquisition in progress | 1.6.8 | 2 | Dr | 38 |
| Goodwill | 1.7 | 1 | Dr | 39 |
| Liabilities | 2 | 0 | (Cr) | 40 |
| Payables | 2.1 | 1 | (Cr) | 41 |
| Trade payables | 2.1.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 42 |
| Interest payable | 2.1.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 44 |
| Dividends payable | 2.1.3 | 2 | (Cr) | 45 |
| Other payables | 2.1.4 | 2 | (Cr) | 46 |
| Payables (foreign currency) | 2.1.5 | 2 | (Cr) | 47 |
| Accruals, deferrals and additional liabilities | 2.2 | 1 | (Cr) | 48 |
| Accrued expenses | 2.2.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 49 |
| Deferred revenue and refund liabilities | 2.2.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 50 |
| Construction projects (special accounts) | 2.2.3 | 2 | (Cr) | 51 |
| Taxes other than payroll | 2.2.4 | 2 | (Cr) | 52 |
| Additional liabilities | 2.2.5 | 2 | (Cr) | 53 |
| Financial liabilities | 2.3 | 1 | (Cr) | 54 |
| Notes payable | 2.3.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 55 |
| Loans payable | 2.3.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 56 |
| Bonds, debentures | 2.3.3 | 2 | (Cr) | 57 |
| Other debts and liabilities | 2.3.4 | 2 | (Cr) | 58 |
| Lease obligations | 2.3.5 | 2 | (Cr) | 59 |
| Derivative liabilities | 2.3.6 | 2 | (Cr) | 60 |
| Provisions, contingencies | 2.4 | 1 | (Cr) | 61 |
| Customer related | 2.4.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 62 |
| Litigation and regulatory | 2.4.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 63 |
| Additional obligations | 2.4.3 | 2 | (Cr) | 64 |
| Equity | 3 | 0 | (Cr) | 65 |
| Stockholders equity | 3.1 | 1 | (Cr) | 66 |
| Stockholders equity at par | 3.1.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 67 |
| Additional paid-in capital | 3.1.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 68 |
| Retained earnings | 3.2 | 1 | (Cr) | 69 |
| Appropriated | 3.2.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 70 |
| Unappropriated | 3.2.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 71 |
| Deficit | 3.2.3 | 2 | Dr | 72 |
| In suspense | 3.2.4 | 2 | Zero | 73 |
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | 3.3 | 1 | Dr or (Cr) | 74 |
| Accumulated OCI (US GAAP) | 3.3.1 | 2 | Dr or (Cr) | 75 |
| Accumulated OCI, reserves (IFRS) | 3.3.2 | 2 | Dr or (Cr) | 76 |
| Miscellaneous equity (IFRS) | 3.3.3 | 2 | Dr or (Cr) | 77 |
| Other equity items | 3.4 | 1 | Dr or (Cr) | 78 |
| ESOP related items | 3.4.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 79 |
| Stock receivables | 3.4.2 | 2 | Dr | 80 |
| Treasury stock | 3.4.3 | 2 | Dr | 81 |
| Additional equity items | 3.4.4 | 2 | (Cr) | 82 |
| Owners equity | 3.5 | 1 | (Cr) | 83 |
| Partner's capital | 3.5.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 84 |
| Member's equity | 3.5.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 85 |
| Non-share equity | 3.5.3 | 2 | (Cr) | 86 |
| Non-controlling minority interest | 3.6 | 1 | (Cr) | 87 |
| Revenue | 4 | 0 | (Cr) | 88 |
| Recognized point of time | 4.1 | 1 | (Cr) | 89 |
| Goods | 4.1.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 90 |
| Services | 4.1.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 91 |
| Recognized over time | 4.2 | 1 | (Cr) | 92 |
| Products and projects | 4.2.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 93 |
| Services | 4.2.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 94 |
| Adjustments | 4.3 | 1 | Dr | 95 |
| Variable consideration | 4.3.1 | 2 | Dr | 96 |
| Consideration paid payable to customers | 4.3.2 | 2 | Dr | 97 |
| Other adjustments | 4.3.3 | 2 | Dr | 98 |
| Expenses | 5 | 0 | Dr | 99 |
| Expenses (classified by nature) | 5.1 | 1 | Dr | 100 |
| Material and merchandise | 5.1.1 | 2 | Dr | 101 |
| Employee benefits | 5.1.2 | 2 | Dr | 102 |
| Services | 5.1.3 | 2 | Dr | 103 |
| Rent, depreciation, amortization and depletion | 5.1.4 | 2 | Dr | 104 |
| Increase or decrease in inventories (IFRS only) | 5.1.5 | 2 | Dr or (Cr) | 105 |
| Work performed by entity and capitalized (IFRS only) | 5.1.6 | 2 | Dr | 106 |
| Expenses (classified by function) | 5.2 | 1 | Dr | 107 |
| Cost of sales | 5.2.1 | 2 | Dr | 108 |
| Selling, general and administrative | 5.2.2 | 2 | Dr | 109 |
| Other non-operating income and expenses | 6 | 0 | Dr or (Cr) | 110 |
| Other revenue and expenses | 6.1 | 1 | Dr or (Cr) | 111 |
| Other revenue | 6.1.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 112 |
| Other expenses | 6.1.2 | 2 | Dr | 113 |
| Gains and losses | 6.2 | 1 | Dr or (Cr) | 114 |
| Taxes other than income and payroll and fees | 6.3 | 1 | Dr | 115 |
| Income tax expense or benefit | 6.4 | 1 | Dr or (Cr) | 116 |
| Intercompany and related party accounts | 7 | 0 | Dr or (Cr) | 117 |
| Intercompany and related party assets | 7.1 | 1 | Dr | 118 |
| Intercompany balances eliminated in consolidation | 7.1.1 | 2 | Dr | 119 |
| Related party balances reported or disclosed | 7.1.2 | 2 | Dr | 120 |
| Intercompany investments | 7.1.3 | 2 | Dr | 121 |
| Intercompany and related party liabilities | 7.2 | 1 | (Cr) | 122 |
| Intercompany balances eliminated in consolidation | 7.2.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 123 |
| Related party balances reported or disclosed | 7.2.2 | 2 | (Cr) | 124 |
| Intercompany and related party income and expense | 7.3 | 1 | Dr or (Cr) | 125 |
| Intercompany and related party income | 7.3.1 | 2 | (Cr) | 126 |
| Intercompany and related party expenses | 7.3.2 | 2 | Dr | 127 |
| Income loss from equity method investments | 7.3.3 | 2 | Dr or (Cr) | 128 |
Updated: February 2026.
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 not be posted as the IASB has decided to not update its taxonomy.
The COA published on this page may be republished provided the following citation is provided: