XBRL:
New Opportunities for CPAs
Glen L. Gray, PhD CPA
Department of Accounting & Information Systems
2009 Accounting & Auditing Conference
1
Speaker
Glen L. Gray, PhD, CPA
 Professor
 Accounting & Information Systems Department
 California State University, Northridge [CSUN]
 Academic Member of XBRL-US since January 2000
 Many XBRL articles, speeches, panels, and
presentations
 145-page research report published by The IIA
Research Foundation: XBRL: Potential Issues and
Opportunities for Internal Auditors
2
Acknowledgements
Mike Willis and Eric Cohen,
PwC
Yossef Newman,
Deloitte
Liv Watson,
IRIS India
Roger Debreceny,
U. of Hawaii
Raj Srivastava,
U. of Kansas
Greg Zegarowski, Financial
Leadership Corporation
Paul Penler,
E&Y
Charlie Hoffman,
UBmatrix
Walter Hamscher,
Standard Advantage
Jan Pasmooij, Royal NIVRA,
Netherlands
Clinton “Skip” White,
U. of Delaware
Neal Hannon,
The Gilbane Group
Amy Pawlicki,
AICPA
XBRL International
XBRL US
Center for Audit Quality
Apologies to anyone I missed.
3
A Brief History of Financial Reporting
 1969: Al Gore invents the Internet
 1994: Commercialization of the Internet
 1999: FASB and IASC each publish reports on financial
reporting on the Internet
 Most large companies are including financial reporting information
on their Web sites
 No consistency in terms of content, format, and navigation
 Probably violating financial reporting regulations! (Still true?)
 Boundary problems (In or out of financials?)
 Automated searches almost impossible
 October 1999: First XBRL meeting with 13 members
 2008: The XBRL consortium has approximately 550
members around the world
 December 2008: SEC requires XBRL starting in 2009
4
Calendar of Major XBRL Events
5
The First time……..
6
Calendar of Major XBRL Events
7
The Morgan Stanley Session
April 2000
8
XBRL Membership Growth
550+ members
20+ jurisdictions
Members
400
300
300
210
200
130
100
80
13
Time
2000
2003
2006
2009
9
XBRL International Governance
cover
10
What are the Problems at
the Ground Level?
11
The Basic Problem
GrayCo
Income Statement (Audited)
Year ended Dec 31, 2008
(millions)
2008
Sales
2007
$ 145
$ 132
101
92
Gross Profit
44
40
Sales, general, and
administrative
Net Income
10
8
$ 34
$ 32
Cost of Goods Sold
12
Possible Solution

Tag every piece of data using XML (not XBRL yet)
<CostOfGoodsSold>101000000</CostOfGoodsSold >



Intelligence built into data (parsing is easy)
Map once, use many
 For analysis
 For different reporting requirements
 For different formatting requirements
Free lunch?
 Bigger files
 Tags pose security risk
13
Basic XML Concepts & Terminology
 Anatomy of XML element
<CostOfGoodsSold>101000000</CostOfGoodsSold >
 Starting tag = <CostOfGoodsSold>
 Ending tag = </CostOfGoodsSold>
 Element name or element-type = CostOfGoodsSold
[no spaces and case sensitive]
 Element content = 101000000
14
Basic XML Concepts & Terminology
 Need for attributes
 What are the problems with the following
elements?
 <price>34.50</price>
 <receipt_date>05/04/2008</receipt_date>
 Adding attributes
<price currency=“USD”>34.50</price>
<receipt_date date=“ISO 8601”>2008-0504</receipt_date>
15
A Remaining Problem
Company
Property, Plant and
Equipment
Sales
Cost of Goods
Sold
Staples
Total property and
equipment
Sales
Cost of goods sold
and occupancy
costs
ExxonMobil
Property, plant, and
equipment, at cost, less
accumulated
depreciation and
depletion
Total revenue
and other
income
Crude oil and
product
purchases
Intel
Property, plant and
equipment, net
Net revenue
Cost of sales
Amazon.com Fixed assets, net
Net sales
Cost of sales
IBM
Plant, rental machines and
other property
Total revenue
Total cost
Wal-Mart
Property and equipment, net
Net sales
Cost of sales
Source: company annual reports
16
Where XBRL
Comes In
17
Some XBRL Terms
Label
Scenario
GrayCo
Context
Income Statement (Audited)
Year ended Dec 31, 2008
(millions)
Attribute
2008
Sales
Cost of Goods Sold
Gross Profit
Sales, general, and
administrative
Net Income
Value
2007
$ 145
$ 132
101
92
44
40
10
8
$ 34
$ 32
18
What XBRL is not…
 NOT a set of accounting standards
 NOT a detailed chart of accounts
 NOT a GAAP translator
 NOT a software application
19
What XBRL is based on ..
XML Specifications
Builds
Modules
Bind to
Domain
Builds
XBRL Specification
Taxonomy
Instance Document
20
20
THE XBRL Specification 2.1
 The XBRL Specification provides the fundamental
technical definition of how XBRL works.
 The spec defines XML elements and attributes that can
be used to express information used in the creation,
exchange, and comparison tasks of business reporting.
 XBRL consists of a core language of XML elements and
attributes used in XBRL instances as well as a language
used to define new elements and taxonomies of elements
referred to in XBRL instances, and to express constraints
among the contents of elements in those XBRL instances.
 Only one specification for the whole world
21
Taxonomies
• A Taxonomy is a dictionary of financial reporting
terms or concepts
•The concepts captured in a taxonomy are referred
to as ELEMENTS. These Elements form the core of
XBRL.
• Separate Taxonomies are developed for different
reporting purposes such as US GAAP, IFRS, bank
regulatory reporting. etc
22
Anatomy of an XBRL Element
Financial
Reporting Concept
XBRL
Element
23
Anatomy of an XBRL Element
24
Anatomy of an XBRL Element
25
COUNTRY /
JURISDICTION
TAXONOMY
Canada
LEVEL
STATUS
GAAP Primary Financial Statements
Ack
Draft
Notes to Financial Statements
Ack
Draft
China Listed Company Taxonomy Framework
Ack
Draft
China Fund Company Taxonomy Framework
Ack
Draft
China Financial Listed Company Information Disclosure Taxonomy
Ack
Draft
IFRS General Purpose, 2005 rules
Ack
Final
IFRS General Purpose, 2004 rules
Ack
Final
IFRS General Purpose, 2003 rules
Ack
Draft
International
Global Common Data Taxonomies
Ack
Draft
Ireland
GAAP Commercial and Industrial
Ack
Draft
Israel
Israeli Annual and Periodic Reports General Purpose Financial Reporting,
extension for International Financial Reporting Standards (IL-IFRSGP)
Ack
Draft
Japan
EDINET Taxonomy
Ack
Final
Korea
GAAP Primary Financial Statements
Ack
Draft
New Zealand
GAAP Commercial and Industrial
Ack
Draft
Spain
General Data Idenfication
Ack
Final
Thailand
Listed Companies - Banking Services
Ack
Draft
Listed Companies - Commercial and Industrial
Ack
Draft
Listed Companies - Securities Companies
Ack
Draft
GAAP Commercial and Industrial
Ack
Draft
China
IASB
United Kingdom
26
COUNTRY /
JURISDICTION
TAXONOMY
United States
LEVEL
STATUS
GAAP - Investment Management
App
Final
XBRL US Accountants' Report Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US Country Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US Currency Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US Document and Entity Information Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US Exchange Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US GAAP Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US Management's Discussion and Analysis Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US Management Report Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US SEC Certification Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US Standardized Industrial Classification (SIC) Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
XBRL US State-Province Taxonomy 1.0
Ack
Final
GAAP - Commercial and Industrial (superseded by the 2008 version)
App
Final
GAAP - Banking and Savings (superseded by the 2008 version)
App
Final
GAAP - Insurance (superseded by the 2008 version)
App
Final
GAAP - Brokers and Dealers (superseded by the 2008 version)
Ack
Draft
GAAP - Pensions (superseded by the 2008 version)
Ack
Draft
SEC Certification (superseded by the 2008 version)
App
Final
Management Report (superseded by the 2008 version)
App
Final
Accountants Report (superseded by the 2008 version)
App
Final
MD&A (superseded by the 2008 version)
App
Final
27
Extension Taxonomies

Why you might need an extension taxonomy
1. You want to include a financial statements item not
in the standard taxonomy you are using.
2. Changing a label for a standard base taxonomy to
match your label name
3. Changing the presentation structure of one or
more standard base taxonomy elements to match the
presentation structure of your report.
4. Changing the calculation structure of one or more
standard base taxonomy elements to match the
calculation structure of your report.
28
Taxonomies and Extensions can be thought of as
the building blocks for XBRL reporting
First Raleigh
Bank
Terms
US GAAP
Bank
Terms
Company Specific Terms
Industry Terms
US GAAP
FS
Terms
US GAAP
Primary
Terms
Foundation Terms
Closer Look at Taxonomies
XBRL Specification
Discoverable Taxonomy Set (DTS)
Standard Taxonomy
Label
Linkbase
Dimension
Linkbase
Reference
Linkbase
Extension Taxonomy
Label
Linkbase
Presentation
Linkbase
Definition
Linkbase
Taxonomy
Schema
Calculation
Linkbase
Dimension
Linkbase
Presentation
Linkbask
Calculation
Linkbase
Reference
Linkbase
Definition
Linkbase
Taxonomy
Schema
Calculation
Linkbase
Presentation
Linkbask
Instance
Document
30
XBRL Linkbases
 Definition linkbase: Indicates for each concept whether it
is a special case of some other defined concept.
 Calculation linkbase: Indicates how one concept in a
group of “sibling” concepts is related to the value of their
parent concept.
 Presentation linkbase: Indicates the order in which each
concept should be presented when grouped with its
siblings.
 Label linkbase: Associates each concept with one or
more presentation labels, one per language.
 Reference linkbase: Associates each concept with one
or more places in authoritative literature where the
concept is defined.
 Dimension linkbase: Captures detailed information
about the horizontal and vertical axes of a table in a note
to the financial statements.
31
Instance Documents
• An Instance Document is your XBRL financial
report
• Instance Documents will include:
• Values (ex. numbers, blocks of text etc)
• Tags to identify the values
• Taxonomy references – Telling you where the
tags are defined
• Context – Information describing the reporting
entity and period
• Units/Measure – Information on unit of
measure, currency etc.
32
Company Financial Statement
XBRL Taxonomy
Created by XBRL Consortium
XBRL Document
XBRL
Creation
TAGGING
Created by Preparer
AT 101
Assurance
33
FDIC & SEC Activities
34
The US Banking Industry [pre-XBRL]
FDIC
OCC
FRB
OTS
NCUA
Today
8900 Banks
 Multiple copies of data exist inside multiple agencies (error prone)
 Avg of 60 – 75 days to receive, validate + publish filings (not timely)
 Estimated processing costs over next 10 years - $65 million (costly)
 March 2003 reports had nearly 18,000 errors that needed to be
corrected (integrity issues)
1,000 basic math errors
17,000 quality (validation) errors
35
The US Banking Industry [post-XBRL]
FDIC
OCC
FRB
OTS
FFIEC
NCUA
Future
8900 Banks
 XBRL open source data standard used for communicating report requirements,
validations, instructions (timeliness/flexibility)
 Filers required to submit data in XBRL format over the web (automation)
 Multiple sources of data
 Processing Time 60-75 days
 Processing Costs $65M
SINGLE SOURCE (integrity)
2 Days (timeliness)
$39M, a savings of $26M (cost/efficiency)
36
Sample of 2008 SEC VFP Test Group
3M Company
AGL Resources, Inc.
Alcoa Inc.
Altria Group, Inc.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Autodesk Inc.
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
Banco Bradesco S.A.
Banco Itaú Holding Financeira
S.A.
Bowne & Co. Inc.
Brazilian Petroleum Corporation
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Broadridge Financial Solutions
Comcast Corporation
Commonwealth Edison Company
Community Bankers Acquisition
Corp.
Crystal International Travel
Group, Inc.
The Dow Chemical Company
Dupont E. I. de Nemours and
Company
EDGAR Online Inc.
E*TRADE Financial Corporation
Exelon Corporation
Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Fastenal Co.
37
Sample of 2008 SEC VFP Test Group
Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Credit Company
General Electric Company
Gol Intelligent Airlines, Inc.
Infosys Technologies Limited
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Liberty Global, Inc.
Liberty Media Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Net Servicos De Comunicacao SA
NYSE Euronext
Oceanic Exploration Company
Old Mutual Capital, Inc.
PECO Energy Company
PepsiCo, Inc.
Pfizer, Inc.
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Radyne Corporation
South Financial Group, Inc.
Tenet Healthcare Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
W. R. Grace & Co.
Xerox Corporation
XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc.
Final count: 141 organizations, 628 filings
3/16/2005 to 4/12/2009
38
Software Used
Six Steps to XBRL , Journal of Accountancy, Feb. 2008
39
39
1st submission/
block-text
footnotes &
schedules
Preparation face
financials
Subsequent
submission/
block-text
footnotes &
schedules
1st submission/
detailed
footnotes &
schedules
Subsequent
submission/
detailed
footnotes &
schedules
$31,369
$4,312
$4,312
$4,312
Preparation
footnotes
$1,750
$1,750
$25,000
$12,500
Preparation
schedules
$250
$250
$2,500
$1,250
Software and
filing agent
services
$6,140
$6,140
$6,140
$6,140
Web site posting
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$40,509
$13,452
$38,952
$25,202
Total cost
Source: SEC VFP Survey (33-9002.pdf, page 133)
40
2009 SEC Mandatory Filing
 Timeline
 2009 (first quarterly report for period ending on or after
June 15, 2009): Approximately 500 largest GAAP
filers*
 2010-2011: Remaining GAAP filers
 2011: IFRS filers
 By December 2011, all public companies will be filing
XBRL financial information
 XBRL documents provided as additional exhibits
 Must also post XBRL documents to own Web site
* Public float > $5 billion
41
2009 SEC Mandatory Filing
 Tagged disclosures…
 Primary financial statements, notes, and financial
statement schedules.
 Initially, notes and schedules would be tagged as blocks
of text, and a year later, they would provide the details
tagged within the notes and schedules
 Use current (January 31, 2009) taxonomy
 Updated EDGAR financial reporting system
accepts XBRL filings
 See EDGAR Filing Manual at:
http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edmanuals.htm
42
XBRL:
A World-Wide
Phenomenon
43
Creating Your First Filing
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Embedding XBRL
Inside the
Organization
55
Presentation has focused on
XBRL “FR”
The business information supply chain
You are here
Processes
Business
Operations
Internal
Financi
al
Reporti
ngXBRL
Ledger
External
Financia
l
Reportin
g
Trading
Partners
Management
Accountants
Economic
Policymak
ing
“Financial Statements”
Financial
Publishers
and Data
Aggregators
Companies
Participants
Investme
nt,
Lending,
Regulatio
XBRL n
Auditors
Investors
Central
Banks
Regulators
Software Vendors
56
Current Management Reporting (SOX issues!)
ontrols
Subsidiary ERP’s
Controls
ontrols
Controls
Control located with data or in
supplemental manual processes
Controls
Controls
ontrols
Controls
Controls
ntrols
Controls
Senior
Management
Controls
Controls
Controls
Supplemental information aggregation
57
Services architecture leveraging taxonomies
Transaction and
or subsidiary
Data
Controls
‘Wrap & Map’
Viewing and aggregation for
department & management
ACORD
XBRL GL
Controls
ACORD
XBRL GL
Controls
ACORD
XBRL GL
XBRL
Web
Services
Senior
Management
Controls
Controls
Controls
58
The Answer - XBRL GL
System 1
XBRL GL
System 2
XBRL GL
System 3
XBRL GL
Account#
accountMainID
Account Number
accountMainID
Identificador de la Cuenta
accountMainID
Description
accountMainDescription
Account Description
accountMainDescription
Amount
amount
Entry Amount
amount
PostDate
postingDate
Posting Date
postingDate
Descripción Principal de la Cuenta
accountMainDescription
Monto Monetario
amount
Fecha de Asignación/Ingreso
postingDate
59
Putting it all together:
What are the opportunities
for CPAs?
Providing XBRL services:
Still many unknowns/questions/issues!
61
Errors found in SEC VFP filings
 Extensions created when standard elements already exist
 Text block elements too broad
 Labels do not match html document (including information
in parentheses)
 Extensions for monetary items require assignment of
debit/credit or definition, companies are not including
 New elements created with company-specific information
in the element name
 Missing elements and amounts
 Incorrect amounts & sign flips
 Duplicate items
62
Standard
Taxonomies
Financial
Statements
Select appropriate
taxonomy
Compare each line
(concept) on
financial
statements w/
taxonomy
Are there
concepts not in
taxonomy?
No
Yes
Extension
taxonomy
Create extension
taxonomy
Create XBRL
instance document
XBRL instance
document
Steps to Prepare an
XBRL Instance Document
Validate XBRL
instance document
Modify taxonomy
& instance
document as
needed
Yes
Are there
validation
errors?
No
XBRL instance
document
63
Introduction to Opportunities




Advisory Services
Assurance Services
Agreed-upon Procedures
Examination of an Assertion About XBRL-Tagged
Data
 Examination of Controls Over the Preparation of
the XBRL-Tagged Data
 AT Section 601, Compliance Attestation
 Review of an Assertion About XBRL-Tagged
Data
Center for Audit Quality [Alert #2009-55]
64
Advisory Services
 Assisting management in obtaining an understanding of
XBRL, relevant requirements, implementation
processes, and timetable
 Providing observations and recommendations to
management on its XBRL project management plan,
implementation process or supporting documentation
prepared by the client
 XBRL team members?
 Outsourcing (filing agent)?
 Software selection?
 Timeline?
 Providing comments on the client’s mapping of its
financial statements to the XBRL US GAAP Taxonomy
65
Preparing XBRL Documents for External Reporting
 Recommend fire drill to client(s) to work out
issues before filing is required:
 Allocation of work between client, CPA, and 3rd parties
 Degree of changes to face of financial statements to
match standard taxonomy [could be zero]
 Decide on block vs. detailed footnotes
 Develop/implement/test/modify extension taxonomies
 Develop plan for official filing based on fire drill
results
66
Advisory Services: Warning…
 Avoid for audit clients…
 Performing project management of the XBRL
implementation project;
 Selecting or recommending a specific software product
for the client to use;
 Mapping the client’s financial statements to the
XBRL US GAAP Taxonomy;
 Designing a plan for the client to implement, or
designing controls over that process;
 Preparing a prototype of the client’s financial
statements using XBRL;
 Providing ongoing support to management in tagging
financial statements.
67
Assurance
 Independent auditor not required to have any role
in XBRL exhibits in SEC filings.
 The following standards do NOT apply:
 AU 550--Other Information in Documents Containing
Audited Financial Statements,
 AU 722--Interim Financial Information
 AU 711--Filings under Federal Securities Statutes
 However, the client may request the audit firm
perform procedures or report on the XBRL
instance document…
68
Assurance Services
 Key components of audit/attestation/assurance
engagement…




Subject matter
Client assertions about subject matter
Criteria
Attestation of client’s assertions about subject matter in
compliance with criteria
 Paper financial statements vs. XBRL
 What are the subject matters, assertions, criteria, and
attestations?
 Are they the same of different? (Yes, no, maybe!)
Assurance Issues
 Paper financial statements not same as XBRL instance
document (different subject matter/criteria)
 Current audit opinion focuses on document level (fair
view)
 XBRL document is a dataset, presentation via a style
sheet, so no fair view? XBRL needs assurance on datalevel
 No taxonomy for the audit opinion or guidance how to
connect the opinion to an instance document, could be the
FS
 No guidance yet about signing audit opinions and
validations of the signature
 No audit tools (as opposed to validation tools) available
for analyzing instance documents
70
Preparation & Assurance Questions
1

Was the appropriate standard taxonomy
chosen based on the industry and applicable
GAAP?
Was the extension taxonomy properly created
for new concepts and relationships not included
in the standard taxonomy. Some related
questions include:



Was a tag included in the extension taxonomy that
already existed in the applicable standard taxonomy?
Are the customizations of labels, presentation order,
and calculations, as captured in applicable linkbases,
appropriate?
1List
inspired by Eric Cohen CICA presentation, 2004
71
Preparation & Assurance Questions


Is everything tagged that should be tagged?
Was the most appropriate XBRL tag chosen for
each fact or concept in the source document?
Two general types of errors could occur here:




Judgment error
Mechanical error
Were there tags in the standard taxonomy that
would have been expected to be used, but
were not used?
Are contexts consistent and appropriate?
72
Audit Approach (AICPA)
“Attest Engagements on Financial Information Included in XBRL
Instance Documents” (AT 9101.47–.54)
.52 …practitioner should consider performing include:
• Compare the rendered Instance Document to the financial
information.
• Trace and agree the Instance Document's tagged information to the
financial information.
• Test that the financial information is appropriately tagged and
included in the Instance Document.
• Test for consistency of tagging (for example, an entity may use one
taxonomy tag for one year and then switch to a different tag for the
same financial information the following year. In this case, the
financial information for both years should use the same tag).
• Test that the entity extension or custom taxonomy meets the XBRL
International Technical Specification (for example, through the use
of a validation tool).
73
PCAOB Guidelines (2005!)
 PCAOB published 11-page staff Q&A regarding XBRL on
May 25, 2005.
 A3. An auditor may be engaged to examine and report on
whether the XBRL-Related Documents accurately reflect
the information in the corresponding part of the official
EDGAR filings… under AT section 101, Attest
Engagements, as amended.
 A4…the auditor must have sufficient knowledge of the
applicable SEC Regulations, EDGAR Filer Manual
requirements, and XBRL taxonomies and specifications to
perform the examination.
74
PCAOB Guidelines
 Q5. What criteria…?
 A5. US GAAP Version 2.1…suitable criteria [however]
Company extensions of those taxonomies normally do not
go through the same development processes as
[standard taxonomies]. Accordingly, the auditor should
evaluate whether company extensions represent suitable
and available criteria as described in AT section 101.
75
Agreed-Upon Procedures
 Firm’s report identifies procedures
performed and results.
 Report does not express an opinion
and makes no representations
regarding the sufficiency of the
firm’s procedures.
 Report is restricted to the client and
the named parties who have agreed
to the procedures & accepted
responsibility for the sufficiency for their purposes.
 It is not appropriate for companies to refer to
services in a publicly available document
Examination of an Assertion about XBRLTagged Data
 SEC Rules note that issuers can obtain third-party
assurance under the PCAOB Interim Attestation
Standards, AT section 101
 AT 9101.47–.54 suggests rending, but this procedure alone
does not sufficiently address the risk that errors could exist
in the tagged financial information.
 Criteria: SEC Rules and the XBRL US GAAP Taxonomy
Preparers Guide
 What about extension taxonomies? Are they subject matter
or criteria?
 What about highly-technical XBRL Specification 2.1? What
content? How do you decide? Skills? Specialist?
 How is materiality assessed? Document as a whole vs.
line-by-line?
77
Examination of Controls Over the Preparation
of XBRL-Tagged Data
 Not likely to be a stand-alone service
 Probably conducted in conjunction with other XBRL
services
 Client’s focus is on just delivering an accurate & complete
XBRL document [controls and efficiency are secondary for
now]
 Because XBRL document creation is bolt-on (after-thefact), tagging is typically not part of a company’s SOX 404
internal control over financial reporting [but that could
change in the future]
78
AT Section 601, Compliance Attestation
 AT section 601 provides guidance on performing an
examination or agreed-upon procedures engagement
related to:
 An entity's compliance with the requirements of specified
laws, regulations, rules, contracts, or grants or
 The effectiveness of an entity's internal control over
compliance with specified requirements.
 SEC Rule 405 of Regulation S-T imposes certain content,
format, submission and posting requirements that an
entity’s compliance could be evaluated against.
 However, the EDGAR Filer Manual includes highly
detailed, technical information; as such, audit firms should
consider carefully whether they have the technical
expertise to perform such compliance services.
79
General Requirements under SEC Rule 405 Regulation S-T
 Information in interactive data format should not be more or less
than the information in the ASCII or HTML part of the report
 Use of the most recent and appropriate list of tags released by
XBRL U.S. or the IASCF as required by EDGAR Filer Manual.
 Viewable interactive data as displayed through software available
on the Commission’s Web site, and to the extent identical in all
material respect to the corresponding portion of the traditional
format filing
 Data in the interactive data file submitted to SEC would be
protected from liability for failure to comply with the proposed
tagging and related requirements if the interactive data file either
 Met the requirements; or
 Failed to meet those requirements, but failure occurred despite
the issuer’s good faith and reasonable effort, and the issuer
corrected the failure as soon as reasonably practical after
becoming aware of it.
80
Review of an Assertion about XBRL-Tagged
Data
 Generally consist of inquiries and analytical procedures
designed to provide a moderate level of assurance (i.e.,
negative assurance).
 However, probably could not perform meaningful
analytical procedures on XBRL-tagged data sufficient to
achieve even this level of assurance and it is uncertain
what other procedures could be identified that, when
combined with inquiries, could form the basis for a review
engagement.
 Accordingly, the feasibility of a review engagement
related to XBRL tagging is uncertain. If a review
engagement could be developed, it would be important for
the review report to communicate its limitations to users.
81
Management Assertions (SAS 106) & Related Audit
Objectives
Assertions about account balances
 Existence
 Completeness
 Rights and Obligations
 Valuation or Allocation
Assertions about classes of transactions and
events
 Occurrence
 Completeness
 Accuracy
 Cutoff
 Classification
Assertions about presentation and disclosure
 Occurrence and rights and obligations.
 Completeness
 Classification and understandability
Audit Objectives
 Validity
 Completeness
 Ownership
 Valuation
 Cut-off
 Classification
 Disclosure
Based on research of Srivastava & Kogan
82
Risk Based Approach for Conceptualizing Assertions
 Data Deficiencies in the XBRL Instance
Document
 Omissions of relevant data from the traditional format
documents (Completeness)
 Insertions of data not present in the traditional format
documents (Existence)
 Erroneous element values and / or attribute values
(such as context, unit, etc.) (Accuracy: Element
Accuracy or Attribute Accuracy)
83
Risk Based Approach for Conceptualizing Assertions

Deficiencies of the Mark-up in the XBRL
instance Document



Erroneous tagging of data that violates XML syntax
rules (Violation of Well-formedness)
Erroneous tagging of data that violates XML Schema
(Violation of Validity)
Inappropriate choice of XBRL elements to tag
traditional format document data (Violation of Proper
Representation)
84
Risk Based Approach for Conceptualizing Assertions
 Deficiencies of XBRL Taxonomies used by the
Filer
 Improper choice of general and industry-specific
XBRL taxonomies by the filer (Proper Taxonomies)
 Violations of XML or XBRL language rules in XBRL
taxonomy extensions by the filer (Valid Taxonomy
Extensions)
 Inappropriate introduction of new elements in XBRL
taxonomy extensions (Proper Extension Elements)
 Inappropriate / erroneous linkbases in XBRL
taxonomy extensions (including the choice of
inappropriate/misleading labels) (Proper Linkbases)
85
XBRL
Resources
86
86
XBRL Showcase



www.xbrl.org/ProductsandServices/
35 vendors listed
Different mix of functions:
 Taxonomy creation
 Instance document creation/conversion
 Validation
 Rendering/presenting
 Analysis
 Stand alone vs. Office add-in
87
87
Where to go from here…






Visit www.xbrl.org & www.xbrl.us -- include
general and technical information about XBRL
Attend public and training days sponsored by
XBRL, CalCPA, AICPA, vendors, etc.
Go to www.sec.gov and search on XBRL and
“interactive data”
Visit Big 4 Web site and search on XBRL.
Google XBRL
Go to www.skipwhite.com
The Accountant’s Guide to XBRL (3rd edition)
The Guide & Workbook for Understanding
XBRL
88
88
Where to go from here…

Search on XBRL at:
 www.aicpa.org and
www.journalofaccountancy.com
 www.calCPA.org
 Center for Audit Quality at www.thecaq.org
 International Accounting Standards Board at
www.iasb.org/xbrl regarding XBRL and IFRS
 The Institute of Internal Auditors’ home page
at www.theiia.org
89
89
Questions?
Thank You
glen.gray@csun.edu
90