When reviewing the suggested sample COA on this site, I found many errors(?) that will cause the filing to be rejected by a validator. For instance, Share Premium is listed under issued capital, which indicates that issued capital balance includes share premium balance. But then, according the calculation network of IFRS 210000 or 220000, Equity is the sum of issued capital and share premium and few other values. So, according to the IFRS taxonomy, Issued Capital and Shares Premium should be at the same level under equity. The provided chart of accounts will cause double counting and filing error.
As a general rule, for a COA to pass, one necessary requirement is that if a parent account is part of a calculation network, then all the children of that account shoukd also be children kn the calculation network, or else a rejection will occur. This principle has been repeatedly violated in the samples provided.
Do you have updated samples?
Thanks
IFRS valudation of chart of account
As noted throughout this site
As noted throughout this site, the IASB does not publish an IFRS chart of accounts.
The IFRS does, however, publish an IFRS XBRL taxonomy (http://archive.ifrs.org/XBRL/IFRS-Taxonomy/2017/Documents/Taxonomy%20View%20with%20definitions%20-%202017.xlsx)
Herein lies the problem. The taxonomy is designed for reporting not accounting purposes.
In other words, it is not designed to be a chart of accounts substitute.
Theoretically, it would be possible to use it that way (https://www.ifrs-gaap.com/files/download2021/XBRL%20based%20chart.xlsx sheet1 or sheet2) but these "charts" would not be particularly useful for accounting purposes.
A further complication is that the EU does not currently mandate the IFRS's XBRL taxonomy for reporting purposes.
As a result, various companies use various accounts that they classify and subclassify in various ways.
The charts presented here simply reflect most common practice (in that actual practice is quite diverse and varies significantly, especially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).
In other words, the charts presented here simply reflects an average chart an average company could use.
As such they should be taken as a first step, not final step.
Before they can be used by a particular company, they need to be adjusted to serve that company's particular accounting needs, including being able to support the reports that company plans to produce.
These reports can vary.
In some jurisdictions, companies publish only IFRS reports. In some jurisdiction, they also publish national GAAP reports which may or may not be based on their IFRS accounts. In some jurisdiction, they may also need to publish tax reports that may be based on either IFRS or national GAAP accounts.
As to the errors you mentioned.
Since the IFRS XBRL taxonomy is not mandatory in the EU, companies that use our services do not, in general, try to reflect its requirements (classification, parent/child relationships, disclosures, etc.) in thier account structures.
That is why the charts we publish do not directly map to this taxonomy (and also why they contain many _extensions that are not found in this taxonomy).
But this is not an error. it simply reflects common practice.
In fact, if we were to produce charts that are fully subordinated to the IFRS XBRL taxonomy, this would be an error as it would run counter to common practice (at least here in the EU).
Obviously, if the EU begins to mandate the IFRS XBRL taxonomy and companies begin design their accounts around this structure, we will update our charts to reflect this practice. Until that happens, we cannot as this will not serve the needs of most of our clinets.
This implies that, if you want to use our charts outside the EU and require that they be subordinated to the IFRS XBRL taxonomy, you will need to map them in a way that eliminates the validation errors you are encountering.
Another option is that we can create a bespoke chart (charts) designed to serve your particular needs.
We provide a similar service to various companeis. Though, up to now, they have been based in either the EU or US.
In general, since no two companies are exactly alike, we start by analyzing company operations. Next, we discuss with management their reporting goals. Then we discuss with the accounting department the best and most cost-effective way to meet these goals while, at the same time, fulfilling IFRS and/or US GAAP reporting requirements.
For our US based clients (the US SEC does mandate XBRL) we also provide XBRL validation. However, as the EU does not require XBRL, there is no demand for this service among our EU clients.
Instead, in the EU, we commonly design charts capable of supporting multiple reporting regimes from IFRS and national GAAP (which vary by jurisdiction) to tax or regulatory (which also vary by jurisdiction).
In any event, for simple companies that have limited reporting needs, a bespoke chart can take us a few hours. For more complex companies, with operations on various countries, designing a complete account structure can take weeks or even months.