If you are seeing this text, it is because you are using an obsolete browser which does not support current web standards. The site will still function, but some parts of it may look unusual. We recommend upgrading to a current browser version.
AGA logo
Advancing Government Accountability
About AGA
AGA Store
Certification
Conferences & Events
Continuing Education
Jobs
Join Now!
Membership & Chapters
Outreach
Press Room
Publications
Sponsors
Standards & Research
AGA Home

arrow 
GO

Print This Page



Publications

AGA Today

Federal Accounting Corner 

Positive and Negative Versus Debit and Credit

Preparing the Form and Content reports can be confusing: if a report line is composed of the balance of several accounts, is the report line shown as a positive number if these accounts have normal balances, or only if the balance is a debit? If the sign is based on the normal balance of an account, then what about lines that are mapped to multiple accounts, some with normal debit balances and some with normal credit balances?

Mathematics Versus Human Speech

In the history of humanity, it wasn't that long ago that most calculations were written out in words, rather than in tables of numerals. Today, we use numerals readily, because "2 + 7 - 4 = 5" is much easier to read than "add two to seven, less four, leaves five." The decimal system of money also assisted in calculations, so we can represent an amount as a single number rather than a string of them, for example, $75.34 (seventy-five dollars and three-four hundredths) versus £2-5s-3d (two lira, five solidi, three denarii = 2.2625 lira). We accountants have a similar problem with debits and credits. If payables has a credit balance of $200, do we say it has a positive $200 balance, since payables are supposed to have a credit balance, or do we say it has a balance of $-200, knowing that payables are supposed to be negative (credit)? Back when Paccioli introduced double-entry bookkeeping to the church, most calculations were still done laboriously, so the additional effort to deal with debit and credit balances was insignificant. Today, with most calculations being made on computerized databases and spreadsheets, that is not the case.

Examples

Suppose we want to assess the creditworthiness of an entity. One test is to calculate the net payables/receivables. Using the "normalized" balances (this is probably not a correct usage of the term, but I base it on the SGL referring to accounts as having a "normal" debit or credit balance), we look at an entity with five million debit balance in receivables and a three million credit balance in payables, subtract them, and say there is a net two million receivable balance. If we use a mathematic approach, where debits are positive and credits are negative, we actually add 5 and -3 to get a +2 million net balance. We don't have to say "net receivable" or "net payable" because the sign of the 2 indicates it is a net debit/receivable.

While the distinction in that example is trivial and more semantic than real, it is not so when dealing with multiple accounts. For example, the post-close balance of Standard General Ledger (SGL) account 3100 Unexpended Appropriations - Cumulative is equal to the sum of the pre-closing balances of accounts 3100 through 3109. However, if we use normalized balances, then we have to realize that accounts 3103 Unexpended Appropriations - Transfers-Out, 3107 Unexpended Appropriations - Used, 3108 Unexpended Appropriations - Prior-Period Adjustments Due to Corrections of Errors, and 3109 Unexpended Appropriations - Prior-Period Adjustments Due to Changes in Accounting Principles have normal debit balances, so we have to subtract their balances, while adding the balances of the remaining accounts 3100, 3101, 3102 and 3106. At least the SGL Board got rid of the normal balance of "either" on accounts for amortization of investment premium or discount, adjustments, funding transfers and similar activity that can go in either direction.

The question of whether debits or normal balances are reported as positive has a major impact on the interpretation of the instructions for the Form and Content reports. In the Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR), for example, does the minus sign in the text of line 18B indicate that receivables are normally reported with a negative balance (because in sections 2 and 3, credit is positive and debit is negative), or does it indicate that the positive normal balance of the receivables is to be subtracted?  Based on FMS's instructions, 18B should report debits as a positive balance, but it should be subtracted when calculating line 18C for next year's statements (line 18C is ending net obligations and line 12C is beginning). Under the current method, it is very easy to report amounts with the wrong sign, which will cause errors when lines are summarized into totals.

Conclusion

The balances on the FACTS I and II adjusted trial balances are signed: positive is a debit and negative is a credit, regardless of what the normal balance for the account is. When Treasury generates the SF-133 Report on Budget Execution (which is now almost identical to the SBR) from these balances, they have to add or subtract these balances to get the value for the line. It would be a lot simpler if the directions for the statements gave the sign to be applied to the account, so preparers of the financial statements would know which balances to add and which ones to subtract when calculating the amount for each line. —by Simcha Kuritzky, CGFM, CPA

This column is provided as part of a free exchange of ideas in federal accounting, and is not reviewed substantively before publication. Please send all comments, queries or corrections to Simcha.Kuritzky@CGIFederal.com

 


Association of Government Accountants   2208 Mount Vernon Avenue   Alexandria, VA 22301   PH 703.684.6931   TF 800.AGA.7211   FX 703.548.9367