In Lesson 1, we examined the key characteristics that differentiate not-for-profit accounting and financial reporting from for-profit accounting and reporting. We compared the financial reporting objectives in government, not-for-profit organizations, and for-profit organizations. Lastly, we introduced the requirements for external financial reporting in relation to the comprehensive annual financial report; general objectives of state and local government financial reporting standards were also introduced.
In Lesson 2, we will (1) understand the nature of governmental activities and learn about three of them: governmental activities, business-type activities, and fiduciary activities; (2) look at the makeup of major fund reporting and the criteria for determining a major fund; (3) examine the components of the Governmental Accounting and Standards Board (GASB) integrated accounting and financial reporting model, including government-wide financial and fund financial statements and the types of funds in each category; and (4) measurement focus and basis of accounting that state and local governments use in preparing their financial reports.
Before beginning this lesson, think about the following lesson objectives. After completing this lesson, you should be able to
By the end of this lesson, make sure you have completed the readings and activities found in the Lesson 2 Course Schedule.
© Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock
We saw from our previous lesson that governmental and nonprofit organizations exist in a social, legal, and political setting that is different from the for-profit environment. We are also beginning to see that because government exists to provide public goods and services, most general purpose governments engage in the three broad service categories of
The activities of government, such as administration, police and fire, public works, education, parks, etc. are referred to as governmental activities. Governmental activities are the core or basic services that government provides. Governments also are involved in certain activities that are called business-type activities, such as toll roads, parking garages, liquor stores, golf courses and swimming pools. In addition, governments operate in a fiduciary capacity as either an agent or trustee for individuals or entities.
Since the accounting and reporting standards for state and local governments need to meet the financial information needs of many diverse groups (citizen groups, legislative and oversight officials, and investors and creditors), we have two levels of basic financial statements to meet the different reporting objectives.
The first type is the fund-basis financial statement. Fund-basis statements are presented for three categories of activities: governmental, proprietary (bussiness-type), and fiduciary (proprietary and fiduciary are discussed later). Because the fund-basis statements present an in-depth record of individual activities of the government, these statements make it challenging for the user to pull the disaggregated information together and form an overall view of the government’s finances.
The second type is the government-wide financial statement, which governments are also required to provide. Government-wide financial statements combine the governmental and business-type activities of the government for the purpose of presenting an overall picture of the financial position and the results of operations.
© iStock/Thinkstock
Before we talk about funds, we first need to discuss the concept of an entity. A reporting entity defines the boundaries of a particular financial reporting unit by describing whose assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and equities are included in the entity’s financial report. In the private sector, if a parent company, such as General Motors, exercises control over its legally separate subsidiaries, the financial activities of all those units are consolidated for financial reporting purposes.
In state and local governmental accounting, there is also the complexity of the dimension of the reporting entity. For example, a city's financial report may cover not only the activities of the legally constituted government, but also the separate legal organizations for which the city is financially responsible. The "city" is referred to as the primary government; the separate legal organizations are called component units. The primary government itself is disaggregated, subdivided into separate fiscal and accounting entities, called funds.
From GASB, the formal legal definition of a fund by is as follows:
In this definition, the term fiscal entity refers to the separate budgetary nature of funds that have only spendable financial resources. The term accounting entity refers to a separate financial unit that is treated as an entity for accounting purposes. Some types of funds also have capital assets that, in fund accounting terms, are non-spendable, non-financial resources.
Governmental organizations must comply with legal requirements stated in constitutions, city charters, statutes, local ordinances, etc. Because the organizations' day-to-day activities are guided by budgets proposed by the executive branch and enacted into law by the legislative branch, internal accounting systems are needed to ensure compliance with budgetary spending limits. Funds have traditionally provided a basic control mechanism for ensuring compliance with legal restrictions on the use of governmental resources. Most funds are set up because of specific legal requirements.
Fund accounting is probably the most distinctive feature of governmental and not-for-profit organization accounting. Fund accounting segregates an organization’s assets, liabilities, and net assets into separate accounting units based on legal restrictions, donor-imposed regulations, or special regulations. Fund accounting is a convenient control mechanism to help ensure that resources are spent for the intended purpose. Because each fund is a separate accounting element, each must have a set of self-balancing accounts; that is, the total of the assets of a particular fund must equal the total of its liabilities and fund balance (or net assets). Thus, the accounting records of a particular fund must identify the fund's unique resources and the claims to those resources, as differentiated from all other funds.
Organizations that use fund accounting generally establish a separate general fund or unrestricted current fund, where resources can be used for any purpose designated by the governing body. In addition, they use separate unique accounts for the acquisition and disposition of restricted-use resources (generally by law, regulation, or donor requirement).
To better understand the unique aspects of state and local government accounting, it is important to examine the types of activities that government conducts, how the activities are financed, and how governments are organized to carry activities out. It is also important to identify the role of laws and budgets in governmental accounting and reporting. State constitutions and statutes and local laws determine what governments do, how their activities are financed, and how their activities are organized. Most governmental activities carried out on a daily basis are based upon budget appropriations that, once enacted, have the force of law. Government accounting systems are designed not only in terms of stewardship of resources, but also in terms of accountability for resources entrusted to government and to help ensure budgetary compliance with appropriations. There are several ways to categorize governmental activities. One way is to differentiate the activities by purpose and how the activities are financed: (1) governmental, (2) proprietary (business), and (3) fiduciary.
GASB Statement 34 requires two financial statements for the general fund and other governmental funds. Both statements report separate columns for major funds and for non-major funds, as well as a totals column. These statements are the Balance Sheet and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Balances. (Note: you will see specific examples through the City and County of Denver, Examples 4-2 and 4-3 in Lesson 4.)
There are three circumstances under which a fund is considered major and is shown in its own column in the financial statements:
A government may designate any fund as major if reporting that fund separately in the basic statements would be deemed useful. In all fund statements, the non-major funds are aggregated and reported in a single column. Fiduciary fund financial statements and the internal service fund portion of proprietary fund statements are reported by fund type, not major fund.
© iStock/Thinkstock
This section will discuss the GASB changes in Tax Abatement Disclosures. Governments that are legally prohibited from disclosing certain tax information should not be required to disclose, but should instead be required to:
For example, governments should not be required to disclose either the number of tax abatement agreements they enter into during the reporting period, or the number of tax abatements in effect at the end of the reporting period.
Governments that receive an offsetting payment should report that payment separately rather than as a reduction to the amount of the tax abatement, and likewise, they should disclose the identity of the other government and the authority for the offsetting payment.
Governments that make one or more additional commitments other than their commitment to reduce taxes should disclose each period, both:
Discretely presented component units should be treated as "other governments" in this case, unless the information on their abatements is considered essential for the fair presentation of the primary government.
If a government chooses to disclose information about individual tax abatement agreements, such disclosures should be consistent for all individual abatements above a quantitative threshold, selected by the government, based on a percentage of the total dollar amount of all abated taxes during the reporting period, and then disclose that threshold.
GASB (2015). Statement No. 77 of the Governmental Acounting Standards Board: Tax Abatment Disclousures. Governmental Accounting Standards Series, No. 353. Retrieved from http://www.gasb.org/jsp/GASB/Document_C/GASBDocumentPage?cid=1176166283745&acceptedDisclaimer=true
© iStock/Thinkstock
A typical state or local government presents data in its financial report from two different perspectives. Each perspective represents one of two levels of financial statement reporting. The fund financial statements present the perspective of the government as a collection of separate funds, while the government-wide financial statements offer a view of the government as a single, integrated financial reporting unit. This unique combination of fund and government-wide financial statement reporting is known as the integrated reporting model.
The government-wide financial statements use separate columns to distinguish governmental activities from business-type activities (GASB Statement 34, paragraph 12). As a rule, governmental fund data are incorporated into the governmental activities column of the government-wide financial statements and enterprise fund data are incorporated into the business-type activities column (GASB Statement 34, paragraph 15). Because the resources of fiduciary funds are generally not available for government spending, by definition, to support the government’s programs, data from these funds are not incorporated into the government-wide financial statements (GASB Statement 34, paragraph 12b).
How data from an internal service fund are incorporated into the government-wide financial statements will depend on which types of funds (general fund or proprietary) predominantly utilize the internal service fund's goods and services. Thus, the data from internal service funds are normally combined with the data from governmental funds in the governmental activities column. However, whenever the predominant users are enterprise funds, the internal service fund’s data are properly incorporated with the data from the enterprise funds in the business-type activities column (GASB Statement 34, paragraph 62).
Generally accepted accounting (GAAP) allow a government the flexibility to incorporate data from an enterprise fund into the governmental activities column (or to incorporate data from a government fund into the business-type activities column) if it wants to (GASB Statement 34, paragraph 15 indicates that governmental activities "are usually reported in governmental funds and internal service funds" and that business-type activities "are usually reported in enterprise funds.") For example, a government might decide to use an enterprise fund to report on a heavily subsidized operation supported by user fees while incorporating data from that fund as part of governmental activities to emphasize the extent of the subsidy and to highlight dependence on taxes (GASB Comprehensive Implementation Guide, 7.7.4).
It has now been more than 15 years since the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments (June 1999). Also, more than a decade has passed since the three-stage implementation of that standard was completed for the very smallest governments (FYE June 30, 2004).
It has now been more than 15 years since the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments (June 1999). Also, more than a decade has passed since the three-stage implementation of that standard was completed for the very smallest governments (FYE June 30, 2004). The GASB has already begun its standard 10-year review of GASB Statement No. 34 to see if it has met its objectives and whether any changes are needed.
This section will focus on a few specific elements of the governmental financial reporting model that are highly likely to be discussed during the forthcoming 10-year review of GASB Statement No. 34. As you read the chapter sections concerning financial reporting, you will see some of the issues that have come about in the use of the current government financial reporting model.
Prior to GASB Statement No. 34, a state or local government’s basic financial statements presented data exclusively by fund type. Financial statement users who wanted information on individual funds (other than the General Fund) had to look to the financial subsection of the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) to obtain individual fund data, which meant such information was unavailable in the case of governments that did not prepare a CAFR. Further, financial statement auditors typically provide only “in-relation-to” coverage, rather than full audit coverage, for combining and individual fund financial statements. That is, auditors offer no opinion on the fair presentation of the fund financial statements as such, but only on the fairness of their presentation “in relation to” the basic financial statements, based solely on the audit of the latter.
The fact that separate funds are established in the first place is evidence that audited individual fund data must be important to at least some financial statement users. As a practical matter, however, most governments have too many funds to make it feasible to include audited information on all of them within the basic financial statements. Therefore, as a compromise, GASB Statement No. 34 required that individual fund data be reported in the basic financial statements, but only for a government’s major funds. As a result, individual fund data automatically became available for the most significant governmental and enterprise funds, even if a government did not prepare a CAFR. Furthermore, the inclusion of individual fund data as part of the basic financial statements raised the level of audit coverage for the individual funds thus included (which are audited as separate financial statements in their own right).
GASB Statement No. 34 expressly permits governments to classify any governmental or enterprise fund as a major fund. It also mandates that individual governmental or enterprise funds be reported as major funds if they meet a specified quantitative threshold (the "10 percent" and "5 percent" rules). In practice, it is uncommon for debt service funds to meet this threshold, meaning they most often are not included as major funds in the basic financial statements. Financial statement users with a special interest in debt service funds see this outcome as a deficiency and have drawn attention to it. Some have even argued that individual debt service funds should automatically be classified as major funds, as is now the case for the General Fund. Such a change would ensure the availability of information in individual debt service funds even if a government did not issue a CAFR. At the same time it would raise the level of audit assurance significantly for individual debt service funds.
GASB Statement No. 34 requires a government’s basic financial statements to include both government-wide financial statements and fund financial statements, with both being of equal rank. That is, fund financial statements are not supporting schedules for the government-wide financial statements, but rather full-fledged financial statements in their own right. While few would not recognize the importance of fund data for many financial statement users, some have argued that fund financial statements should be presented as required supplementary information (RSI) rather than as part of the basic financial statements. Such a change, they argue, would be no different from the change in budgetary reporting that took place as a result of GASB Statement No. 34. That is, prior to that statement, budgetary comparisons had to be presented as part of the basic financial statements, whereas GASB Statement No. 34 reclassified budgetary comparisons as RSI (although it did leave governments the option of continuing to report budgetary comparisons as basic financial statements if they wished to do so).
GASB Statement No. 34 took the position that to be fully accountable in its general purpose external financial reporting, a government needed to demonstrate both operational accountability and fiscal accountability. That pronouncement went on to explain that fund financial reporting was particularly useful for accomplishing the latter objective. RSI, by definition, is not part of the basic financial statements, meaning that failure to provide RSI would not prevent a government from receiving an unmodified opinion on the fair presentation of its basic financial statements. Likewise, as explained earlier, RSI is unaudited, meaning that auditors do not test the data, nor do they offer an opinion on its fair presentation. These factors raise serious questions as to whether fund financial statements presented as RSI would be sufficient to achieve the GASB’s objective of ensuring that state and local government financial statements demonstrate fiscal as well as operational accountability.
Governmental funds have traditionally employed their own unique current financial resources measurement focus, which focuses on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources. Consistent with that measurement focus, the governmental fund balance sheet traditionally has excluded most long-term liabilities (for example, unmatured bonds and notes) and most assets that are not available to liquidate near-term liabilities (for example, capital assets).
Some have argued that the current financial resources measurement focus, in its current form, lacks conceptual consistency in theory and application because it reports certain assets that are not available to liquidate near-term liabilities (for example, the long-term portion of receivables) and certain liabilities that will not be liquidated in the near term (for example, tax anticipation notes). In response to these criticisms, the GASB issued a preliminary views (PV) document that proposed a modified form of the current financial resources measurement focus that would eliminate these perceived inconsistencies (near term financial resources measurement focus).
This issue will be discussed again in the context of the GASB review of Statement No. 34. Some may argue that they could only support the continued inclusion of governmental fund financial statements within the basic financial statements if changes along these lines were made.
GASB Statement No. 34 required that budgetary comparisons for the general fund and major special revenue funds be provided as RSI, but maintained the option of presenting them instead as a basic financial statement. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) specifically addressed this latter option in its 2000 Best Practice, “Locating Budget-to-Actual Comparisons within the Basic Financial Statements.” In that Best Practice, the GFOA observed that:
Adherence to the budget is of paramount importance to the majority of a government’s stakeholders. Indeed, most of a government’s key decisions are based in one form or another upon the budget. Given the importance attached to the budget, it is essential that stakeholders be provided reasonable assurance that a government has maintained budgetary compliance. Until GASB Statement No. 34, this assurance has been provided by the inclusion of the budget to actual comparison statement within the audited financial statements. Although under generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) auditors are required to consider the effect of material instances of non-compliance, the GFOA believes that placing budgetary information in the unaudited RSI significantly weakens this important control.
Accordingly, the GFOA Best Practice went on to recommend that “all state and local governments present mandated budgetary comparisons as part of their audited basic financial statements.” Despite this recommendation, only a minority of the governments that participate in the GFOA’s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program report their budgetary comparison for the general fund and major special revenue funds as a basic financial statement.
A number of respondents to the due-process documents that led to GASB Statement No. 34 criticized the Board for allowing governments the option of voluntarily presenting the budgetary comparison as a basic financial statement rather than as RSI. Given the relatively small number of governments that have taken advantage of this option, it appears quite likely that these critics will renew their efforts to eliminate the budgetary comparison from the basic financial statements.
n addition to the items already discussed, it is clear that a number of other issues will likely be raised in the course of the Board’s upcoming re-examination of GASB Statement No. 34:
© iStock/Thinkstock
In order to ensure consistency over time and to ensure comparability across organizations, governments follow certain standards when recording their financial transactions and summarizing them for reporting to individuals outside of government. These standards are known collectively as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Crucial underlying principles are those that prescribe the measurement focus and basis of accounting.
Measurement focus refers to the kinds of assets, liabilities, deferred inflows and outflows, and changes in net position (or fund balance) a government should concentrate on when recording transactions. Government uses an economic resources measurement focus for government-wide financial statements, meaning that the government records all financial and capital resources that flow in and out and all changes in net position, regardless of their form, as long as a monetary value can be put on these resources. Therefore, governments must track not only cash that changes hands, but also investments, inventory, equipment, buildings and other property, amounts owed to suppliers and employees, outstanding notes and bonds, long-term leases, and looming judgments and claims.
The basis of accounting describes when to record the assets, liabilities, deferred inflows and outflows, and changes in net position (or fund balance) stipulated by the measurement focus. Government uses the accrual basis of accounting to prepare the government-wide statements. It is the accounting method used by businesses and not-for-profit organizations. When using full accrual, the government reports all transactions that occur and have an effect on the government's finances, regardless of whether cash changes hands, in the yearly financial statements. For example, goods and services provided are recorded regardless of whether cash was received in exchange from a customer or credit was extended to a customer. Similarly, purchases of office supplies are recorded whether paid for in cash or bought with a promise to pay later (by credit card or business account).
Government uses a different measurement focus and basis of accounting for its governmental fund financial statements. Governmental funds use a current financial resource measurement focus and a modified accrual basis of accounting. This measurement focus concentrates on financial resources that are current; that is, they are likely to be turned into cash or consumed within one year. These resources typically include cash, investments, accounts receivable, and accounts payable. Capital resources, such as buildings, equipment and infrastructure, and long-term liabilities are not included.
The basis of accounting for governmental funds focuses on expenditures rather than expenses. Whereas resources are used up as expenses in order to operate an organization and provide services (full accrual records a reduction in net position upon comsumption), expenditures represent a payment or a requirement to pay for purchased and received goods and services used to operate the government or provide public services. Consequently, modified accrual records a reduction in fund balance when a good or service has been delivered, and the government is obligated to pay.
This lesson introduced you to the key characteristics that distinguish governmental and not-for-profit entities from for-profit entities, identified the authoritative bodies for government financial reporting standard setting, explained the minimum requirements for general purpose external financial reporting, and introduced you to the concepts of measurement focus and basis of accounting. You were also presented with the key differences between the various budget classifications and their impact on communicating the achievement of goals and objectives.
In Lesson 3, "The Governmental Operating Statements Accounts; Budgetary Accounting," we will examine how operating revenues and expenses that relate to governmental activities are classified and reported in the government-wide financial statements; differentiate between revenues and other financing sources and between expenditures and other financing uses in governmental funds, and explain how budgetary accounting contributes to budgetary control.
State and local governmental accounting is different from private sector accounting in three major aspects especially as it pertains to transparency and accountability. State and local government accounting (1) use separate funds to account for its financial activities, (b) focus on flow of current financial resources and use of modified accrual basis of accounting in some funds, and (3) incorporates budgetary accounts into the financial accounting system for some funds. As you read Chapter 2, you will begin to better understand the integrated reporting model and the measurement focus and basis of accounting. As you read the articles by Crain and Schermann, Attmore, Allen, and McCall and Klay, you will begin to learn in depth the importance of financial reporting in achieving state and local government fiscal accountability.
This lesson introduced you to the key characteristics that distinguish governmental and not-for-profit entities from for-profit entities, identified the authoritative bodies for government financial reporting standard setting, explained the minimum requirements for general purpose external financial reporting, and introduced you to the concepts of measurement focus and basis of accounting. You were also presented with the key differences between the various budget classifications and their impact on communicating the achievement of goals and objectives.
In Lesson 3, "The Governmental Operating Statements Accounts; Budgetary Accounting," we will examine how operating revenues and expenses that relate to governmental activities are classified and reported in the government-wide financial statements; differentiate between revenues and other financing sources and between expenditures and other financing uses in governmental funds, and explain how budgetary accounting contributes to budgetary control.
State and local governmental accounting is different from private sector accounting in three major aspects especially as it pertains to transparency and accountability. State and local government accounting (1) use separate funds to account for its financial activities, (b) focus on flow of current financial resources and use of modified accrual basis of accounting in some funds, and (3) incorporates budgetary accounts into the financial accounting system for some funds. As you read Chapter 2, you will begin to better understand the integrated reporting model and the measurement focus and basis of accounting. As you read the articles by Crain and Schermann, Attmore, Allen, and McCall and Klay, you will begin to learn in depth the importance of financial reporting in achieving state and local government fiscal accountability.
Discussion Question: What are the criteria for determining if a governmental or enterprise fund must be reported as a major fund? What other funds should or may be reported as major funds?
First, you will discuss the question or explore a different question on the same topic with your group members in your group discussion forum space. Once your group has collaborated and developed a position, please assign one person to post your group's position (indicating the group number) to the Lesson 2 Assigned Question Class Discussion Forum no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on Thursday. Each team must provide two sources of evidence for their argument. From Friday to Sunday, each student is required to read and make individual comments on all other group postings.
Assignment: Write a three-page, double-spaced response to Exercise 2-1 in the Reck et al. textbook. Examine the CAFR, pp. 59–60, complet Questions a-f, using your chosen government entity. Submit your examination to the Lesson 2 CAFR Summary Drop Box.
Note: You can find out which group you are assigned to with the following steps: