Chapter 10-understanding usfrtf

FINANCIAL REPORTING USING XBRL – IFRS AND US GAAP EDITION (2006-03-01)

10. Understanding the US Financial
Reporting Taxonomy Framework
In this section8 we will explore the US Financial Reporting Taxonomy Framework
(USFRTF) with a focus on explaining the fundamentals of the taxonomies. This
will provide users with the knowledge they need in order to begin reading,
comprehending, and using these taxonomies for financial reporting or analyzing
financial information which make use of financial information expressed in XBRL.
While obtaining this understanding of the taxonomy is a process that will take
some time and effort, this investment in truly understanding the taxonomy will be
worth while. Not possessing a good understanding will make everything about
using the taxonomy more challenging.
From a big picture perspective, the following captures information about what the
USFRTF is and what it is not:
• The USFRTF is not intended to represent authoritative GAAP or SEC
guidance, but rather a suggested model that can be used as a starting
point for companies to use to create XBRL instance documents.
• The framework can be, and is intended to be, modified to express financial
reporting information as desired by individual companies.
• Although the USFRTF is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, it
should not be seen as a guide for what should or should not be included in
the financial statements of a company.
• The USFRTF is not intended to redefine US GAAP, but rather to capture
information about the application of these existing pronouncements as
they in practice today.
• The framework models alternative presentations and calculations which
can be used; however, it does not provide every disclosure option.
• The USFRTF does not infer that one presentation or calculation method is
preferred over another, but it does model more commonly followed
approaches.
• It is assumed that companies will create company extension taxonomies to
express information which they wish to disclose, which is not contained in
the USFRTF. In addition to defining new reporting concepts within
company extension taxonomies, companies may also change relationships
expressed within the framework.
• The USFRTF does not distinguish between concepts which need to be
disclosed and those which do not need to be disclosed by a specific
company. It simply provides concepts. Not all concepts are intended to
be used by an company. Professional accounting and financial reporting
knowledge and judgment are needed to properly apply the USFRTF to
financial reporting information.
• The USFRTF does not distinguish between presentation (presented on the
face of the face of the balance sheet, income statement or statement of
cash flows) and disclosure (presented in the notes to the financial
statements).
The inclusion of concepts within the USFRTF is based on their historical
occurrence in financial statement disclosures.

© 2006 UBmatrix, Inc 203


10.1. Background to Set Perspective
First we want to establish some grounding to get common misperceptions
surrounding XBRL out of the way so they don’t interfere with truly understanding
what the USFRTF really is.
The USFRTF has been in development for a number of years and is truly on the
cutting edge of XBRL taxonomy development. The first US XBRL financial
reporting taxonomy was created and released in July 2000 (based on XBRL 1.0).
It was a significant effort to create the world’s first XBRL taxonomy and creating
it contributed significantly to understanding what XBRL was, what XBRL needed
to be and what tools were necessary. Unfortunately, this first XBRL taxonomy
was not really usable for "production" financial reporting but instead served as an
important learning experience for what was to come.
The current USFRTF is several orders of magnitude beyond the first XBRL US
financial reporting taxonomy in terms of its functionality and purpose but the
taxonomy is still really in its infancy.
When XBRL was first introduced, there was no "guidebook" for creating
taxonomies, no examples to follow, etc. All this had to be developed by those
blazing the trail. There is a bit of a trail now, as XBRL International has created
and released the FRTA (Financial Reporting Taxonomy Architecture) and FRIS
(Financial Reporting Instance Standards) guidance which provides best
practice/guidelines on building taxonomies and instance documents, respectively.
But, at this phase, there is still more that is unknown and to be discovered or
figured out than there is know.
The USFRTF was created, or rather "evolved", over a number of years. It was
physically created by a small group of people. This small core group collected,
synthesized, and then incorporated feedback from many, many others who
entered, but then exited this process of creating the taxonomy framework.
Feedback has also been received from US GAAP technical specialists in "the Big 4"
and regional accounting firms as well as other groups which are interested in
seeing the USFRTF created.
The USFRTF expresses concepts presented or disclosed in financial statements,
prepared using US GAAP for public profit-oriented companies. The precise
accounting pronouncements covered and other information about the taxonomy
will be discussed below.
But first, we want to set the proper perspective so you can truly understand the
USFRTF.

10.2. An Accountant's Perspective: What is the USFRTF?
If you were forced to describe the USFRTF in terms of something accountants are
familiar with, that something would be a sample or "model” financial statement
which contains all presentation and disclosure information of a company reporting
to the US Security and Exchange Commission under US GAAP (SEC). It contains
information which must be reported based on US GAAP, SEC regulations and
common practice.
Another metaphor is using the popular AICPA guide, Accounting Trends and
Techniques, which is an annual survey of accounting practices which are followed
in 600 financial statements. The USFRTF condenses reporting down into one
common option, but then is flexible and lets reporting entities modify the
taxonomy to meet their individual needs.



The USFRTF (model) is "consensus based", meaning it is not issued by one of the
Big 4 or regional accounting firms; instead, it is as if these firms banded together
and merged their thinking into a single model. Where their internal models were
different, they reached consensus on how the model should be combined to
create the USFRTF (merged model).
This is an oversimplification to achieve a desired result, as the USFRTF is really
not a model; instead, what we are trying to do is achieve a "grounding" and then
move from that grounding to discussing the details of what the taxonomies
actually are that make up the USFRTF. We want to dismiss misconceptions that
people have.
The USFRTF has some characteristics of concepts organized to be used to create
a model financial statement but it is not a model financial statement. But let's
start there and build on this understanding.
In this section, we will explain the USFRTF from an accountant's perspective. We
will try to avoid using XBRL terms as much as possible and stick with accounting
terms. While we will need to use some XBRL terms to explain some essential
aspects, we will try to keep them to a minimum.
If an accountant looks at the USFRTF, in particular the presentation linkbases,
they should be rather familiar. It contains a large amount of accounting terms,
things that accountants understand, and things which, believe it or not, technical
IT people try and stay away from. (Go to most information technology type
people and say "debit" or "credit" and watch their hair stand on end!) Familiar
terms include things like "Balance Sheet", "Income Statement", "Cash Flow
Statement", etc. In addition, the presentation linkbase is structured in a manner
very familiar to accountants. “Income Statement” can be thought of (and in fact
seen) as a hierarchy that contains “Revenue”, “Expense” and “Net Income”
concepts in that specific order (i.e. the same way a company tends to present its
Income Statement).
To help answer the question "What is the USFRTF?", first some details about how
the USFRTF was created will be helpful. We then explain more clearly what the
taxonomy framework is, once we have set the appropriate perspective.

10.2.1. Taxonomy Defined
The USFRTF is a collection of taxonomies. But what is a taxonomy?
So, we start with the definition of the term "taxonomy". Taxonomy is not an
accounting term, as you may have determined by now. But it is also not a
"technical term". The term taxonomy is a term used in science and other
domains and comes from ancient Greek word that means "structured dictionary”.
A taxonomy can be thought of as a "system of classification relating to a topic" or
as a "division into ordered groups or categories". For example, a taxonomy of
soccer terms might include ball, goal, World Cup, etc.
The USFRTF expresses its system of classification relating to the topic of financial
reporting under US GAAP and SEC regulations using XBRL, an XML-based
language for representing business reporting information.
The USFRTF is a representation of financial information prepared in accordance
with US GAAP. The taxonomy framework is a collection of concepts and
relationships between those concepts. The taxonomy framework does not define
the concepts; the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) and other
standards bodies define the concepts. The concepts in the taxonomy framework
reference these standards within the taxonomy.



The connection between the USFRTF and US GAAP is limited to the taxonomy
framework being based on the presentation and disclosure requirements of US
GAAP and it does not add to, modify or even contribute to the standards in any
way. It allows you to identify concepts in the financial statements prepared
under US GAAP using consistent descriptions found in the taxonomy framework
and the accounting standards.

10.2.2. Other Information
Neither the Big 4/regional accounting firms, the FASB (Financial Accounting
Standards Board), the PCAOB (Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board),
nor the US Securities and Exchange Commission endorse the USFRTF taxonomy
in any way. But, the Big 4/regional firms did help create it, as did the AICPA
(American Institute of Certified Public Accountants).
The taxonomy is not static, it is dynamic. It can be changed, and is in fact
designed to be changed. There are no limits XBRL provides on what can be
moved around and what should not be moved around within the taxonomy by a
company extension taxonomy.
Using the taxonomy will help the taxonomy evolve to its appropriate state.

10.2.3. Not a Model Financial Statement or Disclosure
Checklist
The "backbone" of how the USFRTF was created, and also one benchmark for
judging the USFRTF in terms of accuracy and coverage by accountants, has been
the actual financial statements and disclosure checklists that are used by the Big
4 accounting firms in the preparation of financial statements. Initially, when work
first began on the very first US GAAP taxonomy, accountants came with their US
GAAP accounting technical experts, their sample financial statements, and their
disclosure checklists. Very few (if any) of the accountants had even heard of
XBRL. When reviewing the USFRTF, accountants commonly compare the USFRTF
to their sample financial statements and disclosure checklists.
The sample financial statements and disclosure checklists are easier to read than
reading through the standards and trying to create a financial statement. That is
why sample financial statements and disclosure checklists exist. But sample
financial statements and disclosure checklists do not define US accounting
standards.
An important point here is that in most cases, the different sample financial
statements and disclosure checklists from the Big 4 accounting firms used the
same "line item labels", and more importantly these line items attract the same
numerical value when applied in the preparation of a set of financial statements.
The USFRTF reflects this and where there are differences in the line item labels,
the taxonomy framework reflects a consensus of opinion.
Also, if desired, the Big 4 accounting firms or other stakeholders could create
extension taxonomies to reflect labels and relationships they deem to be more
appropriate than the USFRTF. And frankly, they likely will.
One vantage point to help you get your mind around what the USFRTF is that the
taxonomy framework could be considered somewhat of a collection of concepts
and relations which could be used to create a "big sample financial statement".
But most of the sample financial statements certainly are not organized in the
manner of the USFRTF. Nor are sample financial statements nearly as
comprehensive as the USFRTF – the taxonomy framework is very comprehensive.



10.2.4. A Consensus
The way a sample financial statement and disclosure checklist is typically created
is decided internally within each of the individual Big 4 accounting firms. These
sample statements and disclosure checklists are prepared by reference to the
different accounting pronouncements applicable from US GAAP to each part of the
sample and/or disclosure checklist.
But the USFRTF has a broader consensus; the Big 4 and regional accounting firms
and many, many other financial reporting and accounting experts came to a
consensus as to what should be in the USFRTF. Derived from this consensus is
the single taxonomy framework instead of competing/conflicting taxonomy
frameworks. While the USFRTF might not look like any of the Big 4 accounting
firms sample financial statements or disclosure checklist, it reflects all of them
because it is based on this broader consensus.
The USFRTF represents one way to create a taxonomy to represent US GAAP.
And while the USFRTF is not the only way a company can report using US GAAP,
it is one way a company can report. This is all that the USFRTF can be. All
possible ways to report could not possibly be reflected in a single taxonomy
framework. Reflecting all possibilities would render the taxonomy too confusing.
However, the USFRTF can still be as flexible and dynamic as financial reporting by
extending the taxonomy.
Again, this is a bit of an over simplification in order to make a point. The point is
that there is only one, say, classified balance sheet format rather than every
possible format for the classified balance sheet.

10.2.5. EDGAR®
Another resource which was used to create the USFRTF was the SEC’s EDGAR
system. EDGAR® Online®, Inc. has tools which can take the millions of financial
statements filed with the EDGAR system, examine them, and then parse the
information so it can be used to understand how companies actually report. How
companies actually report is extremely good information in determining what is
needed in the USFRTF.
EDGAR Online and others (University of Kansas, EDGARSCAN) have been writing
software for many years trying to extract useful information from Edgar filings of
public companies, this is a wealth of information. However, if it were possible to
perfectly parse this information, XBRL and the USFRTF would not need to exist.
Very useful information has been gleaned from this process and these systems
generate information which can be recycled into making the USFRTF better. For
example, EDGAR Online has been able to generate XBRL instance documents (an
XML document that contains the actual company report information in XBRL
format) for almost 100,000 public companies (counting current and prior period
filings). This information was used to generate an EDGAR Online "extension" to
the USFRTF for areas where it fell short in meeting the needs of actual financial
reporting practices. They basically have 100,000 XBRL instance documents which
can be used to test the USFRTF.
This actual information is incredibly useful input in judging how well the USFRTF
works, where it needs to be adjusted, etc.

10.2.6. Principles Based
Accountants always need to exercise professional judgment in creating financial
statements, whether they are prepared using standard financial statements,
disclosure checklists, XBRL taxonomies, or other tools used for financial reporting.



10.2.7. Not a Standard Chart of Accounts
The USFRTF certainly is not a "standard chart of accounts". Again, accountants
need to always exercise professional judgment. XBRL is simply a method of
expressing something, anything really, using a language which computers can
understand. How the language is used is up to the users. XBRL is extensible.
That is one of the primary requirements the users, which included accountants,
placed on the technical people when creating XBRL.
Any company, any industry, or any accountant is free to use, or not use any
taxonomy component or add any taxonomy component by extending the USFRTF.
XBRL and the taxonomy framework are that flexible.
Users of the USFRTF are free to ask the accountants to justify why they added an
extension or did not use the USFRTF as it exists. Frightening? Maybe. With the
right of exercising professional judgment comes the responsibility to have and
use good judgment. That is the role of a professional accountant.
Does XBRL provide clarity? Yes it does. Clarity as to what concept you intended
to communicate, how the concept is mathematically calculated, etc. One thing
that XBRL does do is reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, vagueness. The
creator of the financial information communicates clearly, using concepts from
the USFRTF or by adding a concept which they believe is appropriate to add, or
adding relationships which they feel are appropriate to add. Analysts using this
information can see very clearly which concepts have been used, how concepts
add up.
The USFRTF does NOT require any company to report additional information.
What it does is help see, very clearly, what was reported and allows a computer
to use the information reported.

10.2.8. The "House of GAAP"
XBRL does not cover everything in US GAAP. And there are common practices
that are not included in accounting pronouncements issued by any standards
body which are included in the USFRTF.
The taxonomy is about what is presented and disclosed in financial statements.
US GAAP also covers recognition and measurement. The taxonomy generally
does not cover recognition or measurement unless it relates to a method or basis
of measurement that should be disclosed or assumptions made in making those
measurements that should be disclosed.
Other concepts have an "XBRL" reference. These concepts (referred to as
abstract concepts) are only for the convenience of presenting (referred to as the
presentation link) the taxonomy in a visual, hierarchical format that accountants
can easily understand. These concepts can never appear in an XBRL financial
statement, called an instance document.

10.2.9. Industry Coverage
Currently, the USFRTF does not cover all industries. Nor does it cover certain
types of financial reporting such as reporting by not for profit entities, state and
local governmental entities, or personal financial statements.
The following is a list of AICPA audit guides which will provide an idea of the
different industries which exist:
AICPA Audit Guides USFRTF Taxonomy
Agricultural Producers and Agricultural Not provided
Cooperatives



Airlines Not provided
Banks and Savings Institutions us-gaap-basi
Brokers and Dealers in Securities us-gaap-bd
Casinos Not provided
Common Interest Realty Associations Not provided
Construction Contractors Not provided
Credit Unions Not provided
Employee Benefit Plans Not provided
Entities with Oil and Gas Producing Activities us-gaap-og
Federal Government Contractors Not provided
Finance Companies Not provided
Health Care Organizations Not provided
Investment Companies us-gaap-im
Property and Liabilities Insurance us-gaap-ins
Companies
Service Organizations Not provided

Not-for-Profit Organizations Not provided
State and Local Governmental Units Not provided
Personal Financial Statements Not provided

The XBRL-US Domain Working Group is currently responsible for creating new
taxonomy framework pieces for the industries identified above. Although a few
additional taxonomies are in development, there is no known master plan for the
building out of the USFRTF to cover all these industries.

10.2.10. What is the USFRTF?
With the background provided above, we now venture to define what the USFRTF
is from an accountant's perspective.
The USFRTF is one consensus-based method of "electronically" classifying
concepts and formats that may be used in presenting and disclosing financial
information under US GAAP. It covers both US GAAP and common practices used
for US financial reporting.
The language, XBRL, is a language which is understandable to both humans and
computers. The USFRTF does not define new accounting concepts. The USFRTF
does not extend or reduce the professional judgment needed by accounting
professionals who are responsible for creating financial statements under US
GAAP.

10.2.11. Some Things Accountants Should Understand
Taxonomies are important to accountants; accountants make up a large majority
of who will be using these taxonomies. Therefore, accountants need to
thoroughly understand these taxonomies. This is particularly true because the
USFRTF is really still being created and is open for input.
The following are a few things that accountants really need to understand in order
to contribute to making sure we have the correct XBRL taxonomies for the needs
of the US financial reporting supply chain. These points are summarized below
and are not about making any sort of judgment about the USFRTF or what is
appropriate. This is the responsibility of the accounting profession and other
participants in the financial reporting supply chain.
What is outlined here are a number of aspects that accountants need to
understand so that they can determine if these aspects are applied correctly in
the USFRTF to increase the probability that the USFRTF is appropriate to use for
financial reporting.



The goal here is to empower the accountants to better read, understand, and
contribute to the improvement of the USFRTF. If users do not understand these
concepts, they will not understand the USFRTF appropriately.

10.2.11.1. One or Many
We have to use two technical terms here in order to make a very important point:
XBRL items and XBRL tuples. Items and tuples will be discussed in further detail
later but there is one very important difference between these two "building
blocks" of taxonomies.
When you put an XBRL item (such as “Land”) in a taxonomy, you can use the
given reporting concept once and only once for a context when you create an
XBRL instance document. An XBRL context represents a reporting time period for
a specific entity and for a specific reporting scenario.
When you put an XBRL tuple in the taxonomy, you can report an unlimited
number of the given reporting concept for a specific context. For example, "Class
of Common Stock" is a tuple which has a number of items included within the
tuple. Since "Class of Common Stock" is a tuple, you can report an unlimited
number of different classes of common stock.
A critical point to understand with items and tuples is this: Are the concepts in
the taxonomy which are items properly designated items; and the concepts which
are tuples properly designated tuples? If not, then the taxonomy will not be
usable as required by its users.
The choice of whether to express a concept as an item or as a tuple when
creating a taxonomy can be a “science”, with reporting concepts falling into one
category or the other. However, sometimes there are shades of gray involved
and ultimately the desired result will determine the choice between these two
options.

10.2.11.2. Same Concept
Concepts should be defined in the USFRTF taxonomy only once. For example,
"Net Income" should be defined once. This concept is in the USFRTF. Now, this
concept is used in multiple places in the framework: on the income statements, in
the statement of equity, in the cash flow statement, and many, many other
places.
If, however, the concept is NOT actually the exact same reporting concept in all
the places it occurs within a taxonomy, it should NOT be defined only once.
Instead, they should be defined as separate concepts and appear where
necessary in the taxonomy.
This distinction is critical. If a concept is defined once, and the concept is used in
two different places but the values for a single specific context (i.e. period of
time) could actually be different, then the taxonomy will not work unless the
concepts are broken out separately in the taxonomy.
If a taxonomy author is unsure whether to assign the same element or not for a
reporting concept that appears in multiple places within a taxonomy, the least
risky choice is to create two different concepts.

10.2.11.3. Comparability
XBRL is comparable to the extent that users of XBRL in a certain situation desire
to have comparability. Comparability is not an XBRL issue, it is a domain issue;
how much comparability does a specific domain, or use, of XBRL desire?



In the financial reporting supply chain, many dynamics are at work. Analysts
need to analyze corporate report data. Comparability helps them, as it helps
them make timely and accurate comparisons. Some companies like comparability
while others don’t…for various reasons.
The financial reporting supply chain which uses the USFRTF will determine the
comparability possible with the USFRTF by how they build the taxonomy
framework. This will be driven by the market, as it is driven by the market now.
In general, XBRL is capable of any level of comparability.
Comparability is a very emotional issue which people tend to turn into an XBRL
technical issue. The reality is that comparability is a domain issue which will be
determined by the domain. Coming to a consensus will likely involve much
emotion and take many years to reach.
XBRL can handle any level of comparability a given domain throws at it, from
“closed loop” systems such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
implementation of XBRL to more market driven systems such as the Security and
Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Voluntary Filing Program.
Creating taxonomies that leverage standard dimensions and/or standard industry
schemes enhance comparability. Not having standard approaches does not mean
that comparability cannot be achieved; it just means it will be harder. The
technical aspects of comparability and the emotional aspects of comparability
need to be separated.

10.2.11.4. Dialog and Balance
XBRL can facilitate a clearer dialog between standard setters, accountants,
analysts/regulators and reporting entities. Financial reporting pronouncements
are fairly detailed and complex. XBRL helps in this communication by forcing the
communication to be more explicit, as well as allowing the communications to be
expressed in a global standard way. XBRL allows these parties to communicate
at a very detailed, clear level.
This communication is not new; communication has always existed in the
financial reporting supply chain. However, XBRL is raising the possibility of
communicating at an even higher (and more efficient) level of detail. That
possibility never really existed before in a global, standard way. XBRL
taxonomies play a very important part in helping achieve this level of
communication.
Also, some information technology tools or processes could be adopted by the
accounting profession to help make pronouncements clearer throughout the
financial reporting supply chain. For example, when software is created, there
also tends to be created something called a "conformance suite". A conformance
suite exercises the software to ensure that it is operating as intended. Creating
an XBRL taxonomy and instance documents based on existing pronouncements,
such as the current USFRTF has done, actually helps users to understand and use
those pronouncements, and, more importantly, will be available for potential new
pronouncements.
The process of using a taxonomy to create real financial statements helps detect
inconsistencies so they can be resolved. Let's look at an example of this in the
creation of another financial reporting taxonomy. In creating the International
Financial Reporting Standards – General Purpose (IFRS-GP) taxonomy, a number
of inconsistencies were detected in the existing International Accounting
Standards (IAS)/IFRS standards. In many cases, the inconsistencies will be (are)
interpreted consistently by humans who can figure things out even if they are
somewhat inconsistent. However, there are still inconsistencies which are open



for interpretation. This does not include those where room was intentionally left
for interpretation; this is inconsistency which forces interpretation where
interpretation was not intended. Computers are very, very bad at dealing with
inconsistencies; in fact, they cannot operate with inconsistencies as humans can
and achieve a reasonable, consistent result.
There are two quick examples which arose when creating the IFRS-GP taxonomy
to make the point more clearly. The IFRS/IAS standards define the concept
"Finance Costs" but it does not provide an example or clearly state what makes
up the details/what to include in finance costs. As a result, this was one of the
harder areas of the IFRS-GP taxonomy to create, as it was far harder to agree on
what goes into the detail of the line item "Finance Costs". Guidance could have
been much more clear.
The second issue involved "Minority Interest" and "Subscribed Capital", two
components of equity. These line items moved around the taxonomy for several
years and it was hard to agree where they should appear in the financials.
Another interesting thing which occurred while creating the IFRS-GP taxonomy
was the dialog between financial institutions and the taxonomy creators,
indirectly through one of the central banks. The taxonomy was initially created
based upon interpreting the standards as written. However, discussions with
financial institutions made it clear that the financial institutions could not report
information in a certain manner; a different approach with the same end result
would have been more practical. As such, the taxonomy was modified.
The dialog between standard setters, accountants, analysts/regulators and
reporting entities is not new. However, it can be more detailed as a result of
XBRL. Creating taxonomies to express new proposed standards help test the
standard and make it crystal clear what the standard is asking for. The ultimate
step will be realized when standard setters and regulators use XBRL when
communicating new pronouncements to the financial reporting supply chain.

10.2.11.5. Computers Don’t Fully Understand the Taxonomy
Computers don’t fully understand a taxonomy. Now, this is a quite an odd
statement, given that the XBRL version of the taxonomy is something a computer
is supposed to understand. But let me explain. To a computer, there is no real
differentiation between many pieces of the taxonomy at this point. A computer
has no idea that "Cash and Cash Equivalents" is a balance sheet line item and
that "Net Income" goes on the income statement. It also does not know that
"Intangible Assets Policy" is really a policy. Humans think computers can
understand these concepts because the word "Policy" is included in the term
"Intangible Assets Policy". Unfortunately, computers cannot, or should not.
The reality is that computers are pretty dumb, they need to be told everything
about every aspect which they are supposed to understand. They are smart in
areas where they are made smart.
Computers do understand XBRL, if they have XBRL processing software. XBRL
processors understand XBRL concepts and will know that "Cash and Cash
Equivalents" and "Net Income" and "Intangible Assets Policy" are all reporting
concepts. And, computers will even know some things about the concept, such
as, whether it is a number, a piece of text, a debit or credit, or what type of
period it relates to.
In order to have additional meaning in the taxonomy, which XBRL technically
provides and which people will soon do, you have to add that meaning. The
definition linkbase functionality of XBRL is a very powerful tool, but as of now,



unused in the USFRTF. By adding things like a definition linkbase, computers can
understand more about the components of the taxonomy.
For example, there is no concept of a "Balance Sheet" in XBRL, but there could be
if it is added. There is no concept of an "Accounting Policy", but there could be,
and "Intangible Assets Policy" could be included in the collection of policies.
The point is that much of this meaning does not exist yet, more will be added.
Base information does exist. And as the meaning is added, XBRL will be even
more powerful. What is added will determine how powerful it will be. This is why
things such as the "Link Role Registry" (LRR) are important, even though you
might not understand completely what the Link Role Registry is.

10.2.12. In Summary
XBRL is a relatively new tool which accountants and other participants in the
financial reporting supply chain have at their disposal. Even though relatively
new, XBRL will exist far into the future.
Accountants need to understand XBRL in order to harness its power. Learning
about the basics of XBRL is the first step to understanding where it is working and
where it is not, and then correcting the USFRTF to work as required.
XBRL needs to work as financial reporting currently works today; changing
financial reporting en masse to meet the needs of XBRL is not acceptable, nor
would it be tolerated in the marketplace. There may be certain aspects of
financial reporting that will likely change over time as a result of the use of XBRL.
However, the USFRTF in no way changes financial reporting, other than provide a
method of expressing financial information, defined by existing financial reporting
pronouncements in an electronic format which is readable by computer software.

10.3. Physical Location of Framework
10.3.1. URL
All the taxonomies that make up the USFRTF can be found at the XBRL-US Web
site (http://www.xbrl.org/us) by selecting "US GAAP Taxonomies". This brings up
the following web page:



On this page is a listing of all the approved, or released and usable, USFRTF
taxonomies.

10.3.2. File Structure
If you look at the directory structure of the taxonomies, they look like the
following:



10.3.3. USFRTF Files
The following is a summary of the URLs of each taxonomy file:
Namespace
Prefix FileType FullURL
usfr-fstr XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-fste XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28.xsd
us-gaap-im XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-fstr Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28-label.xml
usfr-fste Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28-label.xml
usfr-fstr Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
usfr-fste Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
usfr-fste References http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28-
reference.xml
usfr-fstr References http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fste/2005-02-28/usfr-fste-2005-02-28-
reference.xml
us-gaap-basi XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fstr/2005-02-28/usfr-fstr-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-fstr XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/fstr/2005-02-28/usfr-fstr-2005-02-28.xsd
us-gaap-im XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ime/2005-06-28/usfr-ime-2005-06-28.xsd



us-gaap-im XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-pte XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-pte Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28-label.xml
usfr-pte Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
usfr-pte Reference http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28-reference.xml
usfr-fstr XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ptr/2005-02-28/usfr-ptr-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-ptr XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ptr/2005-02-28/usfr-ptr-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-ptr Calculation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ptr/2005-02-28/usfr-ptr-2005-02-28-calculation.xml
usfr-ptr Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ptr/2005-02-28/usfr-ptr-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
us-gaap-basi XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/basi/2005-02-28/us-gaap-basi-2005-02-28.xsd
us-gaap-basi Calculation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/basi/2005-02-28/us-gaap-basi-2005-02-28-
calculation.xml
us-gaap-basi Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/basi/2005-02-28/us-gaap-basi-2005-02-28-label.xml
us-gaap-basi Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/basi/2005-02-28/us-gaap-basi-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
us-gaap-ci XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28.xsd
us-gaap-ci Calculation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28-calculation.xml
us-gaap-ci Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
us-gaap-im XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/im/2005-06-28/us-gaap-im-2005-06-28.xsd
us-gaap-im Calculation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/im/2005-06-28/us-gaap-im-2005-06-28-calculation.xml
us-gaap-im Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/im/2005-06-28/us-gaap-im-2005-06-28-
presentation.xml
us-gaap-ins XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ins/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ins-2005-02-28.xsd
us-gaap-ins Calculation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ins/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ins-2005-02-28-
calculation.xml
us-gaap-ins Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ins/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ins-2005-02-28-label.xml
us-gaap-ins Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ins/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ins-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
usfr-ar XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/ar/2005-02-28/usfr-ar-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-ar Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/ar/2005-02-28/usfr-ar-2005-02-28-labels.xml
usfr-ar Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/ar/2005-02-28/usfr-ar-2005-02-28-presentation.xml
usfr-ar References http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/ar/2005-02-28/usfr-ar-2005-02-28-references.xml
usfr-mda XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/mda/2005-02-28/usfr-mda-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-mda Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/mda/2005-02-28/usfr-mda-2005-02-28-label.xml
usfr-mda Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/mda/2005-02-28/usfr-mda-2005-02-28-presentation.xml
usfr-mda References http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/mda/2005-02-28/usfr-mda-2005-02-28-reference.xml
usfr-mr XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/mr/2005-02-28/usfr-mr-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-mr Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/mr/2005-02-28/usfr-mr-2005-02-28-labels.xml
usfr-mr Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/mr/2005-02-28/usfr-mr-2005-02-28-presentation.xml
usfr-sec-cert XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/seccert/2005-02-28/usfr-seccert-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-sec-cert Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/seccert/2005-02-28/usfr-seccert-2005-02-28-labels.xml
usfr-sec-cert Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/seccert/2005-02-28/usfr-seccert-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
usfr-sec-cert References http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/rpt/seccert/2005-02-28/usfr-seccert-2005-02-28-
references.xml

There are a total of 53 files included in the USFRTF (this includes the broker-
dealer taxonomy)

10.3.4. Relations Between USFRTF Taxonomies
The following diagram explains the relationships between the different
taxonomies.



A document, "US Financial Reporting Taxonomy Framework" summarizes
information about the USFRTF. It is located at the following URL:
http://www.xbrl.org/us/USFRTF/2005-02-28/USFRTF%202005-02-28%20Explanatory%20Note.htm

This document:
• Explains the US Financial Reporting Taxonomy Framework, provides an
overview of its components and structure, as well as plans for future
components.
• Describes significant design decisions, updates from previous versions,
etc.
The above summary document states, "The US Financial Reporting Taxonomy
Framework is a collection of XBRL taxonomies that will be used to express the
financial statement-based reports of both public and private companies across all
industry sectors."

10.4. Components of Framework
First we will take a look at the components of the USFRTF. Then we will look at
the relationships between the components.
The framework is broken down into components or "layers". These layers
include:
• Add-on taxonomies
• Common terms
• Common relationships
• Industry relationships
Note that all components of the USFRTF are compliant with the XBRL 2.1
specification and FRTA (Financial Reporting Taxonomies Architecture) version 1.0
(more information on FRTA can be found on the XBRL International Web site).

10.4.1. Add-on Taxonomies Layer
Add-on taxonomies are stand alone taxonomies typically used by those creating
instance documents. For example, all audited financial statements have an
accountants report and the USFRTF contains an Accountants Report taxonomy.



Those who wish to use these add-on taxonomies can attach them to their
extension taxonomy or to their instance document.

10.4.2. Common Terms Layer (Common Concepts Layer)
The common terms layer are basically building blocks for other taxonomies,
usually industry taxonomies. For example, the term "Net Income" is a commonly
used term, whereas "Aircraft" is a term which is specific (for the most part) to the
airline industry. This set of taxonomies contain schema (.XSD) files with
concepts, labels (in the label linkbases) for those concepts, and reference
linkbases with references to accounting pronouncements for those concepts.
Also, in many cases, documentation (such as human readable definitions) is also
provided for these concepts.

10.4.3. Common Relationships Layer
The common relationships layer is again building blocks, but for presentation and
calculation relationships, rather than the concepts themselves. If the
relationships are common across many industries, they are typically expressed
here.

10.4.4. Industry Concepts Layer
The industry concepts layer contains concepts which are unique for a specific
industry. For example, "Aircraft" is a concept unique to the airline industry.
Rather than burdening other industries with this term, it is defined within the
industry concepts schema, rather than the common terms schema shared by all
industries.

10.4.5. Industry Relationships Layer
The industry relationship layer expresses industry-specific presentation and
calculation relationships. The industry relationships layer typically uses the
common concepts layer and common relationships layer taxonomies and builds
upon them for a specific industry, such as "Airlines".

10.4.6. Summary of Existing Components
The following is a summary of the existing components of the USFRTF. The
components are broken down by layer. For each component, the namespace
prefix, name of the taxonomy, the status of the taxonomy, and a brief description
of the taxonomy are provided.
This summary contains only taxonomies which are approved (or final and
released), are drafts, or are currently planned.
Namespace
Prefix Name Status Description

Common
Layer
Taxonomies
usfr-pte Primary Terms Elements Approved Contains common terms
used by many industries.
psfr-ptr Primary Terms Approved Contains common
Relationships relationships used by many
industries.



usfr-fst Financial services Approved Common terms used within
financial services sector.

Add-on
Taxonomies
usfr-sec-cert SEC Certification Approved Contains concepts
commonly used with the
officer's certification report
as mandated by Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002.
usfr-mr Management Report Approved Contains terms which are
used within the
management report which
typically accompanies
audited financial
statements.
usfr-ar Accountants Report Approved Contains terms which are
used within the
independent accountants'
report.
usfr-mda Management Discussion Approved Contains terms commonly
and Analysis used within the annual
report where a company's
management provides
analysis on results of
operations, financial
positions, and issues.

Industry
Layer
Taxonomies
us-gaap-ci Commercial and Approved Concepts and relationships
Industrial Companies to allow commercial and
industrial entities to
express their financial
statements.
us-gaap-basi Banking and savings Approved Concepts and relationships
institutions to allow banking related
entities to express their
financial statements.
us-gaap-ins Insurance Entities Approved Concepts and relationships
to allow insurance related
us-gaap-im Investment Approved Concepts and relationships
Management to allow investment
management related
entities such as mutual
funds to express their
us-gaap-bd Broker-Dealers DRAFT Concepts and relationships
to allow insurance related



us-gaap-og Oil & Gas Under Concepts and relationships
development to allow oil and gas related
Each of the taxonomies summarized above are a part of the USFRTF. From the
summary of all taxonomies in the USFRTF on the XBRL-US web site, users can
navigate to a summary page for a specific taxonomy. This web page which
serves as a summary of information related to that specific taxonomy. For
example, look at the line below for "Commercial and Industrial":

If you click on the link for this taxonomy, you will be taken to the following
summary page at the following URL:
http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci%20Summary%20Page.htm

This summary page is somewhat of a "starting point" for the taxonomy. The
summary page contains the following information:
• General information about the taxonomy.
• Location of the physical files included in the taxonomy.
• Downloadable copies of the taxonomy files for local use.
• Explanatory Notes which is a narrative which describes the taxonomy. It
also contains disclaimers, terms and conditions of use, and other
important legal stuff which should be considered.
• Printouts of the taxonomy.



• Sample instance documents provided with the taxonomy including various
XSLT style sheets to render the instance documents into a human
readable format.
• "Proof" instance documents (included in the samples) which contains
basically every concept in the taxonomy and is used to test every
calculation of the taxonomy.
• ZIP file which contains taxonomy files, printouts, samples, etc. which can
be downloaded and used locally.
• Summary of errors discovered and reported.
It is highly likely that these summary pages become somewhat insignificant to
actual users of the taxonomy. You may never need to know or use information
about the taxonomy at this level. It is highly likely that software vendors and
others will better organize this information so it is far more usable by the average
CPA but for the time being, this is where all the information about each of the
taxonomies exist.
The USFRTF can be used from the Internet, but it is more than likely that you will
download a copy of the taxonomies and use the version on your local hard drive.
A local version of the taxonomy ensures you don’t have to download it every time
you desire to use it and thus should increase performance when using XBRL-
enabled software applications.

10.4.7. Probable Future Components
To get a better idea of the taxonomy framework, we will speculate here about the
future components of the USFRTF. The following speculates on additional
taxonomies which will be included in the USFRTF.
Namespace
Prefix Name Status Description

Industry
Layer
Taxonomies
us-gaap-agri Agricultural Producers Will likely be
and cooperatives added
us-gaap-air Airlines Will likely be
added
us-gaap-cas Casinos Will likely be
added
us-gaap-cira Common Interest Realty Will likely be
Associations added
us-gaap-cc Construction Will likely be
Contractors added
us-gaap-cu Credit Unions Will likely be
added
us-gaap-eb Employee Benefit Plans Will likely be
added
Federal Government Probably will not be a
Contractors separate taxonomy
us-gaap-fc Finance Companies Will likely be
added
us-gaap-hc Health Care Will likely be
Organizations added



us-gaap-so Service Organizations Will likely be
added

us-gaap-np Not for profit Will likely be
Organizations added, but
not in this
framework
us-gaap-slgu State and Local Will likely be
Governmental Units added, but
not in this
framework
us-gaap-pf Personal Financial Will likely be
Statements added, but
not in this
framework
The last three on the list, Not for Profit Organizations, State and Local
Governmental Units, and Personal Financial Statements deserve a bit of
discussion. It is hard to determine exactly how these three taxonomies will fit
within the USFRTF model since USFRTF is currently focused on public/for profit
companies. There are three possibilities:
• The first possibility is that they will be tightly woven into the existing
foundation, such as using the primary terms taxonomy. This approach
leads to two things. First, that the term "Cash and Cash Equivalents", for
example, would have one definition in all of US financial reporting. There
are those who value this. But that comes at a price. If you want "Cash
and Cash Equivalents", you get EVERYTHING ELSE also. All of it. For
example, take the case of the potential negative impact this could have as
it relates to a user of the personal financial statements. Personal financial
statements tend to be rather simple but this approach means that the user
has to wade through all the common terms used in the reporting of public
companies just so there can be one concept for "Cash and Cash
Equivalents".
• The second possibility is that each of the last three taxonomies would NOT
share the primary concepts, but would create separate physical schema
files for each of the taxonomies, each most likely defining "Cash and Cash
Equivalents". This makes using each taxonomy simpler, as you are not
burdened with wading through thousands of concepts which you would
never use. However, would this mean that you cannot compare say the
City of New York's "Cash and Cash Equivalents" (a local government),
Microsoft's cash (a public company), and John Doe's cash? It does not
mean that at all. Mappings can easily be created between different
physical schema files allowing comparisons across taxonomies.
• The third option is to split the primary terms taxonomy into those which
would be shared by all taxonomies, and those which would not.
One additional final point is worth reinforcing. Currently, the USFRTF primarily
covers financial reporting by public companies. It does not cover financial
reporting by private companies. For example, a small restaurant which is a sole
proprietorship or a CPA partnership are not covered by USFRTF. Will the existing
taxonomies be expanded to cover private companies, or will separate taxonomies
be built for the private sector? This has not been determined.
What ultimately drives how these taxonomies, or drives how these taxonomies
should be created, is how they will be used and the user experiences of those
using these taxonomies, all things considered. Theoretically, it would be great to



have one concept "Cash and Cash Equivalents". However, from a practical
perspective, it is a simple process to create a mapping to express that they are
the same and create separate physical files.
All this will be worked out over time. At this time, the taxonomies have not been
used enough to know the right answers to every question. Using them, and then
refactoring the taxonomies based on user feedback will likely be in the cards for
the USFRTF as it evolves.

10.5. Relationship of Physical Files
The USFRTF contains a number of taxonomies that are used to create an industry
taxonomy such as US GAAP CI. Each taxonomy contains a number of different
physical files. This section will describe these files and how they relate to one
another.
Some of the files are related and have physical mechanisms to express that
relationship. For example, the XML Schema <import> element physically relates
the files in a precise fashion so that an XML parser or XBRL processor can
navigate through them consistently and completely. In general, there are four
ways taxonomy files can be related:
• <import> element from one schema file to another schema file
• <schemaRef> element from an instance document to a schema file.
• <linkbaseRef> element from an instance document or schema file to a
linkbase.
• <locator> HREF attribute from a linkbase locator to a schema file.
We will look at a few known issues in order to understand how these physical
relationships work.

10.5.1. Issues with Relations
Each of these different linking mechanisms has different "features". These
features can be positive (desirable), or negative (undesirable). The important
thing when creating taxonomies is to have the right combination of physical
relatedness.
Additionally, files can be intended to be physically related, but not actually
physically related in a taxonomy. The relationships can be put together in a
company's extension taxonomy or in an instance document.
For example, currently in the US GAAP CI "Commercial and Industrial Companies"
taxonomy, the presentation and calculation relationships exist for both the direct
and indirect versions of the cash flows statement. A company would never have
both such cash flows statements; they would have either direct or indirect.
Another approach to building taxonomies is to not have components such as
presentation links and calculation links which COULD be used related to a schema
file and instead provide them as modularly as possible and let the users of the
taxonomy "wire them together" (physically link them) as desired.
This is the approach used by the IFRS-GP taxonomy, and it is the approach which
the USFRTF will likely move toward. This approach has been called "the window"
taxonomy approach (as you provide a window into the concepts, based on the
linkbases) or an "ala carte" or "palette" approach. This approach is characterized
by creating lots of smaller components (such as having the direct and indirect
cash slows statements presentation and calculation linkbases in separate files)
and then “linking them” together. A user of the taxonomy can then ultimately



hook the smaller components they desire to use either to their company
extension taxonomy or to their instance document.
Please keep in mind that this is not how the current version of the USFRTF is
created, but to some degree this can be achieved and in fact will be explained
later. In summary, this approach simply ignores the schema files such as the
Commercial and Industrial Companies schema (us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28.xsd)
which only contains links to the linkbases and instead references the linkbase files
themselves such as (us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28-calculation.xml) as required by the
user. The problem still exists that both the direct and indirect cash flows
statement calculations links are in the same file. But these can be separated out
in the future. Users can separate them out now by simply creating their own
calculation linkbases, for example.

10.5.2. Issues with Extended Link Role Definitions
Another issue exists with the USFRTF related to extended link roles which will
likely be addressed in future versions. Currently, the extended link roles used by
each taxonomy are defined by each taxonomy. For example, the extended link
role "http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/ lr/role/StatementFinancialPosition" is defined by
the us-gaap-ci, us-gaap-basi, us-gaap-in, us-gaap-im (it is actually different, but
this is a balance sheet, it is just called something slightly different), etc.
An alternative would be to create one file which defines all these extended link
roles which are needed by the entire USFRTF, or perhaps modularize it into two or
a few files. This creates more consistency between the extended links.

10.5.3. USFRTF Current Status
Having explained a few issues and how they might be worked around or resolved
in the future, we will like at how files are physically related now. We will do this
by looking at one taxonomy, the "Commercial and Industrial Companies"
taxonomy, or as we will refer to it, the “CI” taxonomy.
The "core" of a taxonomy is its schema file(s). For example, the schema file for
the taxonomy CI taxonomy is "us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28.xsd". This file is located at
the following URL: http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-
2005-02-28.xsd.
The schema file defines concepts used within the taxonomy, hooks to other
schema files which define concepts used, or hooks to linkbases used by the
taxonomy. In the case of the Commercial and Industrial Companies taxonomy,
the schema file:
• Uses the <import> element to connect to the primary terms taxonomy,
usfr-ptr-2005-02-28.xsd,
• Uses the <linkbaseRef> to physically link to the set of presentation links,
us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28-presentation.xml,
• Uses the <linkbaseRef> to physically link to the set of calculation links,
us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28-calculation.xml,It defines a number of extended
link roles used in the presentation and calculation linkbases.
It also, like all taxonomy files, imports two schemas used by XBRL, xbrl-instance-
2003-12-31.xsd and xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd. This is required as per the
XBRL Specification.
A couple of things are worth noting. The CI taxonomy defines no concepts; all
concepts come from the primary terms taxonomy.



The calculation and presentation links are physically hooked to the CI schema. In
the future, it is highly likely that the CI schema may not even exist, and the CI
single presentation and calculation linkbases, each one separate file, will likely be
50 or so separate components, each component used if desired, but the user is
not burdened by unneeded presentation and calculation relationships.
Any more discussion on relationships would tend to get very technical, so we will
stop here. Additional issues related to the relationships between files which are
important for accountants to understand will be addressed later in this document.
The important takeaways from this discussion of the physical relationships
between files are the following:
• Taxonomies typically contain one or more schema files and linkbase
files…all of which are physical files.
• The smaller the number of files, the less control users have over the
components of the files. If you have one file with everything in it, and you
need one small set of stuff from the file, if you use that file, you get
everything in that file. If you have a larger number of smaller files, you
have more files to look through to find what you need, but when you find
what you need, you are not burdened by other information which tends to
clutter or obscure the smaller set of information you were looking for.
• Taxonomies are made up of schema files (XSD) and linkbases. We will
discuss the different types of linkbases and what they do later.

10.6. USFRTF (CI Taxonomy) Summary Information
The following summary information relating to the taxonomy provides an
overview of the USFRTF CI taxonomy:
• Has about 53 physical files which make up the official USFRTF (this does
not include printouts, etc.
• Defines 3,066 concepts,
• Defines 37 extended link roles defined, but some of these are defined
multiple times in different taxonomies,
• Contains 44 tuples,
• Defines 1 custom type (data types),
• There are 10,394 labels (about 3.3 labels per concept which includes a
standard label, documentation, terse label, etc.)
Since all this will be explained in later sections, the above is simply a summary of
statistics relating to the CI taxonomy.
The CI taxonomy is XBRL 2.1 compliant, FRTA compliant, and the sample
instance documents provided with it are FRIS compliant. The sample instance
documents provided with the CI taxonomy serve as an example of how instance
documents look when prepared by US public commercial and industrial like
companies.
The components of the taxonomy will be described in significantly more detail
later in the document.



10.7. Synchronization to US GAAP
This version of the CI taxonomy is tied to US GAAP, sometimes called "the house
of GAAP".
The table below shows the accounting literature covered in the USFRTF:
Publisher Publication Abbreviation
FASB Accounting Principles Board Opinion APB
FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standard FAS
FASB FASB Interpretation FIN
FASB FASB Technical Bulletin FTB
FASB Emerging Issues Taskforce EITF
FASB Implementation Guide Q&A
FASB FASB Staff Position FSP
FASB Current Text CT
FASB Accounting Principles Board Statements APS
FASB FASB Financial Accounting Concepts CON

AICPA Accounting Research Bulletin ARB
AICPA AICPA Opinion and Interpretation
AICPA Industry Audit and Accounting Guide AAG
AICPA Statement of Position SOP
AICPA Practice Bulletin PB
AICPA AICPA Accounting Interpretation AIN
AICPA AICPA Accounting Principles Board Statement
AICPA AICPA Issues Papers
AICPA AICPA Technical Practice Aids TPA

SEC Regulation S-X SX
SEC Article 9 ART 9
SEC Article 4 ART 4
SEC Regulation S-K SK
SEC Regulation S-B SB
SEC Regulation S-T ST
SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins SAB
SEC Regulation T Reg T
SEC Staff Position SP
SEC Financial Reporting Release FRR
SEC Staff Legal Bulletin SLB
SEC SEC Industry Guide

OTS Federal Regulation FR

10.8. State and Maturity of the USFRTF
Although the USFRTF has existed in many forms over the past several years, this
version of the framework is really the first usable version. In the past, XBRL tools
were not mature enough to properly test the taxonomies. All previous versions of
the taxonomy should be considered “early prototypes” and thus abandoned in
favor of the current version.
With this version of the USFRTF, a significant amount of testing has gone into
creating the taxonomy. In many (but not all) of the USFRTF taxonomies, the
calculation and tuples were tested to ensure they "behave" as desired by creating
"sample" instance documents to test the taxonomy prior to releasing it.



However, the real test of the taxonomy will be when hundreds of companies are
reporting their financial information using the USFRTF. This "stress testing" of
the framework in the real world will help ensure it was built and operates as
desired. During the creation of the USFRT a number of instance documents were
created to test the taxonomy. Although helpful, the reality is the taxonomy is still
fairly new and untested in the marketplace.
As with any work in progress, there are still some issues related to the taxonomy.
It will likely never be perfect but it will be as good as humans can get it given the
current maturity level of XBRL and XBRL software and related tools.
The importance of the USFRTF taxonomies should not be overlooked. In the early
stages of XBRL, the USFRTF was the first set of taxonomies addressed by the
consortium. These taxonomies blazed a trail when there was not even a trail to
follow. More recently, the USFRT was the first taxonomies taken through the
XBRL International Domain Working Group approval process, helping other
taxonomy builders learn from the process as well as helping improve the process
itself. Does being first mean that it reflects the way it should be built? Although
still in its infancy, the use of the taxonomy in the marketplace will ultimately
answer that question.
So, do the regulators, accountants, reporting entities, and consumers of
information have what they need from the USFRTF? That question can only be
answered through using the taxonomy to see where it works and where it does
not. Only then will all of the participants in the financial reporting supply chain be
able to prove that the taxonomy as it exists is the taxonomy required by the
market.
The following are some specific examples of issues which remain unanswered in
order to provide a sense of the financial reporting issues which are still to be
answered through making use of the taxonomy in a real world environment:
• "Property, Plant and Equipment" is a commonly used line item on a
balance sheet; however, the taxonomy defines several classes of Property,
Plant and Equipment: "Land", "Building", etc. The issue is would it be
better to simply define the concept "Property, Plant and Equipment" and
offer no additional detail classes, or should the taxonomy offer a
reasonable list of detail classes for "Property, Plant and Equipment" as it
currently exists. If the latter is true, is the list provided the right detailed
list, or are their additional classes that are required? Will accountants
agree that the list provided is a good list?
• The same issue as above exists for "Identifiable Intangible Assets",
"Accrued Expenses", and other similar sub classes of financial reporting
information.
• If a company using the CI taxonomy is, say, an airline and wants to add
the concept "Airplanes" as a class of "Property, Plant and Equipment" as
part of their extension taxonomy, the process is more complex than just
adding a single element and involves the following:
o The concept "Airplanes" must be added to the taxonomy,
o The measurement basis concept for airplanes must be added
o The depreciation method concept for airplanes must be added
o The estimated useful life concept for airplanes must be added
There are better ways of expressing these "properties" (or meta-data) of a
class of Property, Plant and Equipment. This same issue exists for other
parts of the USFRTF.



• The financial statements of conglomerates (hybrids) which have the
characteristics of multiple industries cannot be easily expressed with the
current USFRTF and thus an extension taxonomy must be created.
• Movement analysis calculation relations cannot be fully expressed in the
taxonomy as XBRL cannot express cross-context (time period)
relationships. This deficiency is currently being addressed by the creation
of the formula linkbase specification (add-on functionality to the XBRL 2.1
Specification) which is discussed later in this document.
• At times, concepts are included in the taxonomy as items or classes of
items such as the classes of "Property, Plant and Equipment" which include
"Land", "Building", etc. At other times classes of information are captured
within a tuple. Concepts are expressed using both methods. Time will tell
if the appropriate method was used for specific concepts within the
taxonomy. Using item concepts maximizes comparability; using tuples
hinders comparability to a degree (precisely what degree is yet to be
determined). Adding "Codes" to tuples is an effort to decrease the amount
of lost comparability when using a tuple.
Continued use of the USFRTF will prove that the taxonomy is what is desired,
ensuring that what exists is correct, ensuring that pieces are not missing, and
that relationships are correctly expressed. This step in the evolution of the
UFRFTF has not yet occurred but is getting some traction as result of the XBRL
programs in place at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and
Security & Exchange Commission (SEC).
The trick will be not only to heavily make use of the USFRTF but also to evolve it
and correct any errors reported by the market. Key is that in the process it is
important not to disrupt the financial markets which rely on the financial
information being reported.

10.9. Understanding the Taxonomy Components
In this section we will explain the USFRTF taxonomy components at a moderate
level of detail so that users can better understand how to "move around" the
taxonomy, how to read it, where to go for additional information, and generally
how to make use of the taxonomy. We will also summarize useful information in
this section important in better understanding taxonomy components.
A common mistake made by users time and time again is to believe that a
reporting item that should exist in the taxonomy does not exist when in fact it
does exist…it’s just the user can’t find it. It is very important to spend time to
understand the different "areas" within the taxonomy so that looking for and
finding specific items is simple and straightforward.
While you can open up the taxonomy files (the physical XML files) and see what is
going on, you would have to have a good understanding of XML, XML Schema,
and XBRL in order to really make sense of all the information. We are trying to
avoid getting into the technical level, so we will focus on looking at reports and
other user-friendly ways of exploring the taxonomy.
Using financial reports as the basis for exploring, it is possible to get a thorough
understanding of the taxonomy. One does need to understand how to read GAAP-
based financial reports. Keep in mind that the official version of the taxonomy is
the information contained in the XML files themselves.
The USFRTF is quite large, and will grow even larger. It would not be practical to
cover each part of every taxonomy included in the USFRTF in this document, as
we are attempting to provide only an overview. So, we will continue to focus on



one industry taxonomy, the "Commercial and Industrial Companies" or CI
taxonmy. The process we use for looking at this taxonomy can be used to look at
the other component taxonomies of the USFRTF.

10.9.1. Understanding the Physical Files and their Relation
This section describes the physical files of the CI taxonomy (us-gaap-ci
namespace prefix). The starting point for the CI taxonomy is the following file:
http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28.xsd
If you obtain the file above and load it into an XBRL tool, the XBRL tool will locate
all the other files which it needs to piece together the entire CI taxonomy. The
following are all the files which would be obtained by the XBRL processor of the
given tool:
us-gaap-ci Calculation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28-calculation.xml
linkbase
us-gaap-ci Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28-
linkbase presentation.xml
usfr-ptr XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ptr/2005-02-28/usfr-ptr-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-ptr Calculation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ptr/2005-02-28/usfr-ptr-2005-02-28-calculation.xml
usfr-ptr Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/ptr/2005-02-28/usfr-ptr-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
usfr-pte XSD http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28.xsd
usfr-pte Labels http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28-label.xml
usfr-pte Presentation http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28-
presentation.xml
usfr-pte Reference http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/common/pte/2005-02-28/usfr-pte-2005-02-28-reference.xml

Reference parts (Not sure whether I should add this)

When considered as a whole, all of these files make up the CI taxonomy and
allow XBRL tools to present the taxonomy in a way users can understand.

10.9.2. Reports of Taxonomy Information Available
There are several different reports which come with the CI taxonomy that will
help with better understanding its detail. All of these reports, which can be found
at the CI link provided above, come in a variety of formats: PDF, Excel, and
HTML. Although each format is beneficial, we will focus on the PDF versions of
these reports. A URL for each of these reports will be provided to make it easy
for you to locate the actual report.
Note that the official reports from the web site of the CI taxonomy are being used
below. These may not be the best reports to use, as they are cluttered with too
much information in many cases. If you have an XBRL tool, you can regenerate
these reports to be more readable, or you can try and obtain alternative reports
from other sources.

10.9.2.1. Element/Concept List Report
The following is a screenshot of a portion of the report of elements/concepts in
the CI taxonomy. This report can be found at the following URL:
http://xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/Elements%20by%20Label%20%20CI_2005-02-28.pdf



This report contains a flat listing of every element/concept defined in the
taxonomy and any taxonomies referenced by this taxonomy. Specific to the CI
taxonomy, it does not define any concepts itself. Instead, references the usfr-pte
which does define concepts.
Information provided for each concept on the report includes:
• "ID" or identifier. The ID is not actually part of XBRL but instead an
automatically incremented number that helps make the concepts more
readable/trackable. This is very useful when you want to refer to a
particular concept and can easily reference "ID 5", for example.
• "Bal" or balance type, which will either be "D" for debit, "C" for credit or
blank meaning there is no balance type assigned. This is an indication of
what the “natural” balance for the item is; for example, assets are
“naturally” debits so if the value is positive it should be read as a debit and
if negative, a credit.
• "Per" or period type which will always be I for instant (as of date – e.g. for
balance sheet items) or D for Duration (from/to dates – e.g. for P&L
items).
• "Nil" or nillable attribute value; T means true (item can be left empty
when creating instance documents), blank means false (item must have a
value when creating instance documents).
• "Type" or data type – see “Concepts/Elements” section later for more
detail on what these types are and their effect.
• "NS" or namespace prefix. Note that all the concepts have a namespace
prefix of usfr-pte. If there were other taxonomies included then they could
be identified by their different namespaces.
• "Labels/Name/Documentation", a list of the all labels, the XML unique
name and human readable definition for the concept. For ID 5 above, you
can see the element name and four labels of that element listed after the
name. Further note that the label role (Terse label, for example) is
included. Concepts can have a number of labels which can be used in
different circumstances, these are distinguished by the “roles”. They can
also be in different languages, but right now the CI taxonomy only has
English available.
• "References" to authoritative guidance – see “References” section later
for more detail.



If you go to the end of this report you’ll find ID number 1503, exactly the number
of concepts defined in the taxonomy (one concept per ID). This point is
important to remember as in the presentation and calculation reports, concepts
may appear multiple times. But in the element/concept list, each concept
appears only once.
One feature of the element/concept report is that although each concept is listed,
the concepts are in alphabetical order instead of any kind of presentation or
report order. This causes the concepts to be seen out of their typical context and
thus may make understanding the meaning of individual concepts more difficult.
The presentation-oriented taxonomy reports give a better understanding of the
taxonomy as it relates concepts in the way they tend to appear on financial
reports. However, you need to be careful as the presentation report shows
relations, not concepts. Relations can appear several times in presentation
reports and yet point to or use the same concept. This is an important concept to
keep in mind.
In summary, the element/concept listing is a good listing of concepts, but it does
have limited use and utility.

10.9.2.2. Presentation Reports
The presentation reports are the best reports for understanding taxonomies.
Keep in mind that the presentation report shows relations, not concepts. As
such, concepts can appear in multiple places on the presentation report and yet
refer to the same concept.
The presentation report of the CI taxonomy can be found at this URL:
http://xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/Presentation%20%20CI_2005-02-28.pdf

Again, this report is a bit cluttered as it is showing all the labels and
documentation for each presentation “concept”, making it difficult to read the



report and use it for certain purposes. If the report were regenerated, say, to
display only a single label, it would make the report easier to understand.
The CI presentation reports provide a summary of the presentation links in the CI
taxonomy. It is similar to the element/concept report, but shows the appropriate
labels (standard, beginning balance, ending balance, etc.) for each concept
instead of the element name and all types of labels. Since the CI taxonomy has a
unique label for each concept, you can look at the taxonomy quite effectively
using just the label.
Another significant difference with this report is that it shows extended links.
Each presentation link is contained within an extended link which "partitions" the
presentation links into "sets" or "networks" as they are referred to within XBRL.
Note that the concepts themselves in the concepts report discussed above are not
partitioned by extended links, as only relations can be partitioned.
For example, ID 1 above shows the extended link with the label "Statement of
Financial Position" or balance sheet. It is undesirable for, say, the direct cash
flows statement and the indirect cash flows statement to be combined together;
therefore, they are in different extended links which keep them partitioned. We
will see more on this later.
While the element/concept report shows concepts only once, concepts may
appear on the presentation reports a number of times. For example, the concept
"Net Income" appears in the income statement, statement of equity, cash flows
statement, and various places in the notes to the financials. The information
about the concept (Reference, NS, Type, etc.) will be the same for each
presenation concept occurrence. What could be (and most times will be) different
is the "parent" the given concept is related to.
The relationship between a concept and another concept is shown by the
indentation under the label. When there is an indentation that means there is a
“parent-child” relationship between the outer concept and the indented concept –
i.e. all the indented concepts “belong to” the outer concept. When there is no
indentation, concepts are called “siblings” – i.e. they “belong together” or can be
thought of as existing at the same level.
An important topic to discuss related to how concepts are presented is abstract
elements. In the CI presentation report above, ID 3, "Assets", is an abstract
element. Abstract elements are included purely for organizing the taxonomy
itself and have no effect on, nor appear in, any resulting financial report. They are
like “placeholders” or “headings”. The presentation report identifies an abstract
element by the Type having parenthesis (for example "(String)") and the label is
in italics.
Every concept used by the CI taxonomy is shown on the presentation reports.
Concepts not shown are not intended to be used by the CI taxonomy.

10.9.2.3. Calculation Reports
A third way to look at a taxonomy is using the calculation report which, for the CI
taxonomy, can be found at the following URL:
http://xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/Calculation%20%20CI_2005-02-28.pdf



Note that each "bar" (white or gray) is one taxonomy concept, similar to the
display on the element/concept and presentation reports. Both the label and the
concept name are shown on the report; removing the concept name from this
report would make it clearer.
The calculation report shows calculation relationships between concepts. The
report is very similar to the presentation report, but there are some differences.
The "Wgt" or weight column shows the XBRL "weight" attribute value for the
calculation relationship. For example, ID 6, "Cash – Unrestricted" has a "Wgt"
value of 1. "Cash – Unrestricted" is indented under "Cash and Cash Equivalents"
(ID 5), its parent.
A weight of “1” means that the given concept adds into its parent while a weight
of “-1” indicates it subtracts from its parent. For example, we might have a
parent “Fixed Assets, Net” that has 2 children – “Fixed Assets, Gross” and
“Accumulated Depreciation, Fixed Assets”. “Fixed Assets, Gross” would have a
weight of 1 and “Accumulated Depreciation, Fixed Assets” would have a weight of
-1 so that “Fixed Assets, Net” can be calculated as “Fixed Assets, Total” minus
“Accumulated Depreciation, Fixed Assets”.
Addition and subtraction (1 or -1) are the only mathematical operations you can
do within the Calculations links. A more sophisticated mechanism, the formula
linkbase, is being developed by XBRL International to overcome this limitation.
Only elements which are involved in calculations are shown on the calculations
report. There are extended links shown on the reports for calculations and those
extended links can be different to the presentation links, although their purpose is
exactly the same. And again, this report shows links, not concepts. A concept
can have more than one calculation link, therefore it can appear on this report in
multiple places. Usually if a concept appears on this report more than once, it
will be within different extended links.

10.9.2.4. Definitions Report
The USFRTF presently has no definition links, and as such, there are no definition
reports included with the taxonomy.

10.9.2.5. Explanatory Notes or Taxonomy Documentation
The explanatory notes or taxonomy documentation can be found at the following
URL:
http://www.xbrl.org/us/fr/gaap/ci/2005-02-28/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28.htm

This documentation contains additional information about the CI taxonomy which
is not contained in the XML Schema or linkbase files. This includes legal
information, terms and conditions of use, disclaimers and other information of a
legal nature which might be deemed important.


Chapter 10-understanding usfrtf

Chapter 10-understanding usfrtf

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Chapter 10-understanding usfrtf

Semelhante a Chapter 10-understanding usfrtf (20)

Mais de jps619

Mais de jps619 (14)

Chapter 10-understanding usfrtf