XBRL Caluclation Assertion - Same Concept Used Twice

已回答

要求演示

• 2018年08月14日 03:11

On the Income Statement, the same Concept is used for sales from products and services, but differentiated with a unique member per the 2018 US GAAP Taxonomy requirements (same goes for Cost of Sales) to avoid a duplicate fact error. However, you cannot use a concept more than once in an XBRL calculation assertion.  For presentation purposes, the same concept is being used for the two XBRL calculation assertion contributors. How does one apply a calculation assertion when for XBRL in this scenario? See illustration below.

0

• 

  Sally Hui

  • 2018年08月14日 22:27

  I think  you can add the segment or product & service axis to

  segregate the different, but still use the same concept for both revenues and costs and expenses

  0
• 

  Alex Pabellon

  • 2018年08月14日 22:46

  You can also, at least in theory, extend one of the sales concepts, but best practice is to avoid using extensions in the base financial statements. Because you're using the same concept for two line items, only concepts can be contributors to calculation assertions, and a contributor cannot be used more than once in a calculation assertion, the calculation assertion will fail for facts differentiated at the dimension level rather than concept level. This is a known limitation of the calculation assertion logic currently in use. In the past, these were relatively rare, especially in the base financials. Now, changes such as the new Revenue Recognition Standard has made the 2018 XBRL taxonomy somewhat unique in that it requires all Revenue From Contracts with Customers to be tagged with the same concept and dimensions added to differentiate different revenue streams under the new Standard. So this has increased the frequency of failed calculation assertions in the base financial statements. I am unaware of an update to assertion logic, so what we've done is review the calculation assertion on the document editor AND on the XBRL outline. As long as the arguments entered on the assertion itself are correct for each concept in use, we've passed on that warning. I am curious as to whether there's a better solution or workaround.
  

  0
• 

  Wayne Yee

  • 2018年11月30日 07:00

  
  Was there any resolution to this?  I'm having the exact same issue.  I applied the "Product and Service" axis to differentiate but it still fails the logic test.  Based on Alex's reply, how would you get the calculation assertion into the outline if it fails the logic test in the first place?  Or at least, it seems a bit confusing to me.  I'm surprised this isn't a more common question being asked.  Thanks.

  0
• 

  Mike

  • 2018年12月03日 21:43

  Hi Wayne,
  
  I believe I can help resolve what you are seeing. Alex is correct in that there is a current limitation in calculation relationships when dimensions are applied to fact values.  There are three main rules when determining if a calculation relationship is necessary:
  
  

  1. must be at least one line item summing to a total;
  2. within the same period, and;
  3. within the same presentation.  

  Relationships exist between line item elements and an element cannot be added more than once or to itself. In this particular example, the same element is being used on the first three rows for revenue; therefore, rule one of the main rules has not been met.  The same would go for the expense lines as well. However, if a gross profit line was present, a relationship between revenue and cost of revenue to total gross profit would be appropriate to define that relationship as that represents separate line items.
  

  We see a similar dimensional relationship impact on the Balance Sheet.  For more information, you can visit this Community post about those scenarios and best actions, and in the meantime give me a holler if you have any questions.

  Thanks again and have a super day

  0

请先登录再写评论。