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:

Budgeting without Budgetary Accounts 

Introduction

Mitch Laine, in his article on financial management reform in AGA's Summer 2005 Journal of Government Financial Management, proposed eliminating all budgetary accounts. These past few months, I've run a series of columns in the Washington, D.C. Chapter newsletter describing a proprietary-only posting model. (The newsletters can be viewed at www.agadc.org, and will end with the October issue.) This column will summarize the model and the lessons learned.

Structure

The first thing I noticed was the considerable redundancy in the current Standard General Ledger (SGL). By going to an all-proprietary chart of accounts, I eliminated one—and sometimes two—sets of postings from the most common entries. In order to capture most of the detail required to produce the current financial statements, I had to beef up the detail captured in a number of proprietary accounts (described below).  However, as Laine pointed out in his article, much of the detail in the budgetary accounts is needed to prepare the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program and Financing Schedule. This data is usually maintained by budgeters in spreadsheets, and many agencies are still struggling to capture it correctly in the SGL accounts.  It would be easier to let budgeters budget without using the SGL and simplify the chart of accounts. If an agency currently captures this information in their accounting system, they can move it to a field other than general ledger account.

Cash

The number of budgetary chart of accounts practically doubled when Treasury split them between cash and non-cash accounts. This also necessitated adding extra postings to the disbursement and collection transactions. In my proprietary-only model, I simply split out cash to capture the information for the SF-224 Statement of Transactions and the Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR). So, accounts such as 1020 FBWT – Appropriations – New, 1031 FBWT – Collections – Prior-Year Refunds, and 1042 FBWT – Disbursements – Advances all close to 1010 Fund Balance With Treasury – Beginning Balance.  All cash-related budgetary resources were mapped to the proprietary cash accounts.

Receivables

One major issue was how to handle anticipated collections and unbilled reimbursements. I decided that the closest approximation to this in the proprietary accounts was a contingent receivable, so I added 1370 Anticipated Collections, 1371 Reimbursable Agreements, and 1372 Earned but Unbilled Reimbursements. I also split out the 1310 receivable account so that 1311 is for vendor refunds and 1312 is for reimbursements billed. All budgetary resources not related to cash were mapped to receivable or payable accounts.

Equity

The current equity accounts are redundant as the data is available in other accounts.  So I removed the current set and replaced them with a series of accounts associated with budget status. I actually got the idea from audited statements that were issued years ago, where equity was split between obligated and unobligated. I split out the equity accounts into authority that is unavailable (3110), anticipated (3111), unapportioned (3115), available (3120), reserved (3121), committed (3125) and obligated (3130). In this way, an appropriation would capture the same information with two accounts (a debit to cash and credit to equity) as is now captured in the SGL with four accounts.

Expenditures

I didn't see any reason to distinguish between obligations and expenditures in the equity accounts, since the SBR does not make that distinction and besides, that information is available in the expenses or purchases (I kept the 8802 and 8801 accounts for asset purchases). So, for direct appropriations, balances remain in 3130 Obligated Authority until annual close, when 6101 Expense of Appropriated Obligations and 8801 Authority Used for Purchases close into it. For reimbursable expenditures, the balance in 3130 Obligated Authority moves to 5201 Revenue from Reimbursable Services Provided.

Fixed Assets

I restored account 3210, which Treasury got rid of years ago, only I named it Funded Capital. All asset purchase, depreciation and disposal entries in appropriated funds (and revolving funds where revenues can exceed expenses) run through that account instead of 3310 Cumulative Results, in order to agree with the private sector, where the purchase of an asset has no impact on cumulative results. For a reimbursable fund, an asset purchase does not generate revenue, but depreciation does, making the depreciation account (6103) a funded expense. The obligation balance remains in 3130, and only gets reduced when depreciation is closed there as part of annual close, or by a direct entry on disposal of the asset.

Spending Adjustments

I kept spending adjustments, since they can detect an agency's attempt to reprogram funds without OMB's consent.  However, since I track spending in one equity account (3130 Obligated Authority), I only need two spending adjustment accounts:  3131 Downward Adjustments of Obligations and 3132 Upward Adjustments of Obligations.  Gone is the eight-way split based on delivered versus undelivered orders, paid versus unpaid and upward versus downward. Though I do split out cash to separately identify prior-year refunds (1031), reductions in prior-year advances issued (1037), and disbursements for prior-year expenditures (1041) to meet Treasury's reporting requirements.

Conclusion

The SGL that has evolved over the years is cumbersome and complex. There are reasons it has become so complex—agencies use the data for a number of different and unrelated purposes. But now that Treasury is implementing a new governmentwide accounting system that will add additional fields for capturing transaction characteristics, perhaps it is time to review the basic assumptions of the USSGL and see if it could be simplified without losing functionality. — 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