Some business dealings are negligible to warrant mentioning in a financial report. The idea of materiality is used to determine what information should be included in a financial statement and what information should be omitted so that the statement is as concise and unified as possible for use in an external study of the company’s financial health.
Let’s check out the Materiality Concept in accounting.
What is Materiality Concept?
For purposes of putting up the financial statements, “material” means that the information can change the view or opinion of a reasonable person, and so is essential.
In brief, when putting together the company’s financial statements, care must be taken to include all relevant financial data that could sway the opinion of an informed reader. A related term for the materiality idea is “materiality constraint” in accounting. The corporation need not include non-material information in its financial statements.
Materiality is a relative term in accounting, depending on context and the magnitude of the transaction. It means that one company’s financial data could be considered material by another, yet the same data could be irrelevant to a third. This facet of materiality becomes more apparent when contrasting businesses of different sizes, such as a major corporation with a small one.
Compared to the company’s size and revenue, a similar cost may be considered a significant expense by a small business yet insignificant and minor by a huge business.
Auditors, shareholders, investors, etc., are all examples of potential recipients of financial statements. Therefore, the materiality concept’s primary goal in accounting is to determine whether or not the information at hand substantially affects the viewpoint portrayed by financial statement users.
Principles of Materiality Under GAAP and FASB
General Accepted Accounting Principles and Concept of Materiality
According to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), the most important criteria for determining materiality are –
According to current GAAP, the “materiality principle is a concept when material items in a financial report are omitted or misstated. These have an impact on the viewpoint of the users of that report; it may have a likely impact on judgment and reliability.”
The FASB’s Materiality Principle
Conversely, the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) key rule for determining materiality is-
When considered in context, the scope to which an accounting information omission or misstatement is likely to have caused a reasonable person’s judgment to be affected.
Importance of the Accounting Concept of Materiality and Its Applications
It is important to note that concept of materiality is a relative term that directs a business to identify and disclose only those transactions that are sufficiently big relative to the company’s operations and might cause concern to users of the financial statements.
According to the materiality notion, if a transaction involves a significant amount of money, the corporation must report it by generally accepted accounting rules.
Moreover, a misrepresentation occurs if accounting principles are not followed, and materiality is quantified in terms of dollars.
Therefore, businesses must learn to identify what factors are most important to their operations and invest in a sufficient number of workers to keep their books in order.
Several factors may influence the materiality determinations:
- The nature of the business,
- The state of the economy
- The authority of the person reviewing the financial statements.
But if the expense of following the accounting principles seems to outweigh the expected advantage, the corporation may abandon them.
Subjectivity’s Role in the Concept
The idea of what constitutes “materiality” in financial statements is a well-established accounting norm. The historical cost convention is a similar notion that is adhered to by businesses. These are the subjectivity factors:
- Keep track of purchases using the market rate at the time of purchase.
- Value assets at their initial investment.
Note that confirming charges incurred in the past is typically carried forward. This means there is essentially no doubt about past prices. But materiality evaluations might be subjective and ambiguous.
The issue concerns the potential weight that particular data might have on a choice. Therefore, there may be some subjectivity involved in concluding materiality. Because of this, there will always be a range of possible interpretations.
It should come as no surprise that opinions on what truly matters can vary among the following:
- The company’s board of directors.
- Management positions in a company.
- Top management.
- Potential collaborators in business.
- Accountants.
- Auditors.
- Possible financiers.
- Shareholders.
If the organizations’ interests, motivations, and goals are different, there is a greater likelihood of conflict.
Consequences of Accounting’s Misuse of the “Materiality” Concept
Misusing the materiality principle in accounting might have severe repercussions. For the most part, “rules of thumb” are used by auditors and courts to assess cases of material abuse.
However, neither GAAP nor FASB has been willing to provide a precise range for error sizes that would constitute materiality abuse.
But there are other considerations besides error magnitude that the reviewers who make materiality abuse rulings should consider.
Considerations for the materiality principle concept:
These two considerations are the reason for the mistake and how seriously the user will likely take it. They also consider the following two variables:
The Reason and Intention Behind the Mistake
If auditors or a court can show that the defendant intended to do any of the following, a finding of abuse is more likely:
- Hold stock prices at inflated levels.
- Income should be inflated.
- Don’t give the complete picture of the asset base’s worth.
- Exert improper pressure on merger or acquisition choices.
The Influence It Will Most Likely Have On The Opinions And Views Of Users.
Audit Materiality Example
To state a Materiality example, here is the explanation for the same. A mistake in the section containing the income would be placed in a section that should not. Let’s assume that “Manufacturing indirect labor expenses” for this period are very high. Consider the possibility that these are incorrectly filed under “Direct Manufacturing Labor.”
Probably not a case of material abuse, just a simple oversight. Because both types of expense add to the cost of products sold, this is probably a minor slip-up from a materiality standpoint (COGS).
Therefore, the most important metric for decision-makers—gross profits—remains the same irrespective of which COGS category contains the indirect labor expense.
Conclusion
Materiality Concept is one of those auditing “grey spots.” There are no hard-and-fast criteria when determining what constitutes “materiality,” regardless of how that term is defined in auditing standards.
Instead, auditors must use their best judgment to determine what matters for each organization based on specific characteristics like size, internal controls, financial performance, etc.