## 2.27 Relationship Between GFS and IPSAS / IFRS

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [2.27 Relationship Between GFS and IPSAS / IFRS](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/proposed-recommendations-gfsm-2014-update-125-relationship-between-sna-and-ipsasifrs.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/proposed-recommendations-gfsm-2014-update-125-relationship-between-sna-and-ipsasifrs.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/proposed-recommendations-gfsm-2014-update-125-relationship-between-sna-and-ipsasifrs.pdf.json)

---

### Summary findings and context
- Increasing use of accrual based accounting frameworks (IPSAS, IFRS, national public sector and corporate frameworks) means GFS compilers could rely more heavily on accounting data.
- Similarities between accounting and statistical guidelines are positive; however, data presentation requirements differ even where recognition and measurement requirements are aligned, and some additional data need to be collected because of key recognition and measurement differences.
- Appendix 6 of the GFSM 2014 is now outdated due to changes in IPSASB guidance since 2014; practical bridging tools are limited, especially for complex areas such as leases.
- IPSASB maintains an IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard and an IPSAS-IFRS Comparative Dashboard; IPSASB project ‘Strengthening Linkages Between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM’ and Exposure Draft 94 (published February 2026) aim to identify:
  - (a) Data recognition requirements in IPSAS Standards aligned with the GFSM 2014;
  - (b) Differences in data presentation requirements between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM 2014 even where recognition and measurement requirements are aligned; and
  - (c) Additional data that needs to be collected for GFSM 2014 reporting because of key recognition and measurement differences.
- IPSASB launched a project in June 2023 to replace IPSAS 1 on Presentation of Financial Statements, expected to conclude in December 2027; the IPSASB consultation launched in April 2026 does not support GFSM-aligned presentation formats at this stage.

### Draft recommendations (high level)
- Revise the GFSM 2014 Appendix 6 comparison with IPSAS to reflect changes since 2014, clarify relevance for countries applying national public sector accounting frameworks or IPSAS-based standards, and provide clearer explanations of key areas of alignment and difference; focus Appendix 6 on high-level issues.
- Extend and maintain the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard jointly with IPSASB (recommended Option A3) and encourage use of the IPSASB’s IPSAS–IFRS Comparative Dashboard and IPSAS 22 implementation guidance rather than developing duplicative resources.
- Produce supplementary guidance (separate from the GFSM) to give practical instructions on bridging accounting data into GFS (and vice versa), allowing for more frequent updates as IPSAS changes.
- Prioritize detailed practical compilation guidance (outside the GFSM) on complex transactions (e.g., leases) where divergences are most material.
- Recommended adoption of Option A3 (extend and maintain the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard jointly with IPSASB) to maximize uptake of alignment opportunities with only limited additional workload for IMF and IPSASB staff.
- Support from the GFS Advisory Committee (GFSAC) at the May 2026 meeting for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option A3.

### Issue A — Opportunities for further alignment of GFSM and IPSAS
- Background:
  - IPSASB Strategy and Work Program 2024-2028 emphasizes alignment with GFS.
  - IPSASB Policy Paper on the Process for Considering GFS Reporting Guidelines During Development of IPSASs sets out the IPSASB process for reducing unnecessary differences.
  - High-level guidance in the 2025 SNA (Tables 28.1 and 30.1) highlights differences and similarities between statistical standards and accounting standards.
- Options identified:
  - Option A1: Status quo.
    - Pros: No additional work; IPSASB can identify opportunities via its processes.
    - Cons: No coordinated overview; lack of structured ongoing mechanism; lower profile for alignment beyond individual projects.
  - Option A2: IMF develops its own central tracking mechanism.
    - Pros: Increased visibility of opportunities; stronger basis for identifying, monitoring and promoting opportunities.
    - Cons: Increased workload for IMF staff; risk of duplication or differences with IPSAS-GFSM Alignment Dashboard.
  - Option A3: IMF and IPSASB extend and maintain the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard jointly.
    - Pros: Maximizes uptake by providing coordinated overview; significantly less work for IMF staff than Option A2.
    - Cons: Some limited additional workload for both IMF and IPSASB staff compared with Option A1.
- Draft recommendation:
  - Adopt Option A3 to provide a coordinated overview of opportunities and whether they are being taken forward.

### Issue B — Revisions to Appendix 6 of the GFSM
- Background:
  - GFSM 2014 Appendix 6 currently provides a high‑level overview of relationships between GFS reporting guidelines and IPSAS Standards but needs updating to reflect IPSAS changes since 2014 and IPSASB Exposure Draft 94 analysis.
  - Many countries apply national public sector accounting frameworks or IPSAS-converged frameworks; some public corporations use national GAAP rather than IFRS.
- Options identified:
  - Option B1: Limited editorial changes only.
    - Pros: Revises Appendix 6 to reflect significant changes since 2014; minimizes resources required.
    - Cons: Increased risk guidance becomes out of date as IPSAS Standards change.
  - Option B2: Reduce level of detail and provide separate external resources for detailed linkages.
    - Features: Focus on data alignments and differences; reference external resources (IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard, IPSAS–IFRS Comparative Dashboard); acknowledge national standards and IPSAS-converged frameworks; update Box A6.1 and review references in Chapters 1, 3 and 4.
    - Pros: Revises Appendix 6 to reflect significant changes; increased focus on alignment and key differences; reduced risk guidance becomes out of date; enables use of complementary resources.
    - Cons: Increased resource requirement vs Option B1; guidance not all in one place; need for sufficient additional guidance to enable compilers to understand alignments and differences.
  - Option B3: Provide more detailed guidance within Appendix 6.
    - Features: Extended relationship between GFS statements and IPSAS presentations; transaction/instrument-level guidance.
    - Pros: Revises Appendix 6 to reflect all relevant changes; potential to address main compiler needs in one place.
    - Cons: Greater resource requirements; risk of being over-long and obscuring key alignment areas; significantly increased risk guidance becomes out of date as IPSAS Standards change.
- Considerations:
  - Option B2 seeks a balance between relevance and timeliness by focusing Appendix 6 on high-level conceptual relationships and directing readers to external, regularly updated resources for details.
  - Practical compilation guidance on complex transactions (e.g., leases) is prioritized to be developed outside the GFSM to allow more frequent updates as IPSAS changes.
- Drafting-team recommendation:
  - Adopt Option B2.
- GFSAC input:
  - At the May 2026 GFSAC meeting there was support for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option B2.

### Issue C — Practical guidance to bridge accounting and statistical differences
- Background and key needs:
  - GFS compilers require access to underlying detailed accounting data; Standard Chart of Accounts (SCoA) must be sufficiently detailed to facilitate both financial and statistical reporting.
  - Where recognition and/or measurement differences exist between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM 2014, the SCoA must include additional data to meet both frameworks’ requirements.
- Benefits of a multi-dimensional integrated SCoA:
  - Generate budgets, budget execution reports, financial statements, and statistical reports from a common data source.
  - Reduce reconciliation burdens, improve timeliness, and enhance credibility by ensuring one dataset serves multiple purposes.
- Options to address Issue C:
  - Option C1: Provide additional general guidance.
    - Existing resources cited include:
      - The World Bank publication – A Good Practice Outline of the Multipurpose Chart of Accounts, 2019
      - The IMF publication – Chart of Accounts: A critical Element of the Public Financial Management Framework, 2011
      - IPSAS-ISS Alignment Dashboard
      - The proposed new IPSAS 22 Implementation Guidance
    - Pros: Could be tailored to provide additional guidance on key areas of difference in the final update.
    - Cons: Considerable initial development resources required; need for regular updates; potential duplication or contradiction with existing guidance.
  - Option C2: Provide additional guidance on specific areas (primarily outside of the GFSM).
    - Rationale: IPSAS 22 Implementation Guidance likely will highlight where additional data needs to be collected for GFSM 2014 reporting; Appendix 6 could include references to external resources and IPSASB staff guidance on consolidation.
    - Example need: Leases — significant conceptual differences mean additional practical guidance would be helpful.
    - Pros: Guidance can meet GFS compiler needs in specific areas while minimizing need to consult multiple guidance sources.
    - Cons: Initial development resources required; care required to avoid duplicating or contradicting existing guidance.
- Draft recommendation:
  - Adopt Option C2 to target scarce resources on particular problem areas.
- Implementation approach:
  - Ask the GFS community which non-alignments cause the most problems and which specific guidance would have most impact; a list to prioritize core areas is available in Annex 1.
- GFSAC input:
  - At the May 2026 GFSAC meeting there was support for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option C2.

### Issue D — High-level reconciliations between GFS and accounting source data
- Background:
  - Relevance confirmed at May 2025 GFSAC meeting.
  - Illustrative example: United Kingdom’s Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) — Annex A of the 2023–24 WGA (published July 2025) presents reconciliations between financial statements and the National Accounts, including detailed bridges for the balance sheet and statement of performance.
  - Project links with GFSM Update Research Project 2.31 on Fiscal Analysis and Policymaking.
- Options to address Issue D:
  - Option D1: Status quo — no guidance.
    - Pros: No additional work.
    - Cons: Opportunity missed to raise profile of issue.
  - Option D2: High-level guidance in updated GFSM and more detailed supporting guidance outside the GFSM.
    - Features: Streamline Appendix 6 by removing details to increase focus on data alignments and main differences, include very high-level guidance on reconciliations; keep detailed supporting guidance as an external resource.
    - Pros: Provides additional guidance while minimizing impact on GFSM length; avoids jurisdiction-specific detailed differences.
    - Cons: May not provide sufficient guidance for all compilers; significant additional work required to provide guidance outside the GFSM.
  - Option D3: Provide detailed guidance in the GFSM.
    - Pros: Maximizes chances of meeting compiler needs; avoids split between high-level and detailed guidance.
    - Cons: Significant additional work; moves GFSM away from being principles-based; maximum impact on GFSM length because of jurisdictional differences.
- Draft recommendation:
  - Adopt Option D2 to provide guidance in an emerging area while avoiding jurisdiction-specific detailed differences and minimizing additional work.
- GFSAC input:
  - At the May 2026 GFSAC meeting there was support for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option D2.

### Key statistics and timelines
- 77 (81%) jurisdictions projected to be reporting on accrual will make use of IPSAS Standards by 2030 (International Public Sector Financial Accountability Index 2025 Status Report estimate).
- 18 new IPSAS Standards published since GFSM 2014; accrual IPSAS Standards increased from 32 to 41 as of January 2026.
- IPSASB project to replace IPSAS 1 launched in June 2023 and is expected to conclude in December 2027.
- IPSASB Exposure Draft 94 published in February 2026 focuses on Linkages Between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM 2014 (Amendments to IPSAS 22).
- GFSAC meetings referenced: May 2025 and May 2026; GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: May 2026.
- Example publication dates: Annex A of the 2023–24 WGA published July 2025.

### Expected outcomes (drafting team recommendations)
- Update Appendix 6 (adopt Option B2):
  - Revise the GFSM 2014 Appendix 6 comparison with IPSAS to reflect new and updated IPSAS since 2014.
  - Clarify relevance for countries applying national public sector accounting frameworks or IPSAS-based standards.
  - Provide clearer explanations of key differences and alignments.
- Reference resources and joint tools:
  - Encourage continued development and joint maintenance of the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard with IPSASB.
  - Reference the IPSAS–IFRS Comparative Dashboard and IPSAS 22 implementation guidance where relevant.
- Develop bridging guidance outside the GFSM:
  - Produce supplementary guidance to bridge accounting data into GFS (and vice versa) for data prepared under IPSAS, IFRS, national GAAP or other frameworks, allowing more frequent updates.
  - Initially prioritize areas with significant conceptual differences (per Option C2), e.g., leases.
- Prioritize detailed practical compilation guidance on complex transactions outside the GFSM:
  - Develop practical supplementary guidance to adjust IPSAS/IFRS-based accounting data for GFS purposes in areas such as leases, public-private partnerships and concessions, government guarantees, employee pension obligations, and sophisticated financial instruments.
  - Acknowledge it will not be possible to provide detailed guidance for all national frameworks; locating guidance outside the GFSM allows flexible updates as accounting standards evolve.

### Preliminary views of the GFSAC
- An earlier version of the discussion note was discussed at the GFSAC meeting of May 2026.
- Task team recommendations are consistent with the preliminary views of most GFSAC members.
- GFSAC supported the Task Team’s recommendations for Option A3 (alignment dashboard), Option B2 (Appendix 6 approach), Option C2 (targeted practical guidance outside GFSM), and Option D2 (high-level reconciliation guidance in GFSM with detailed support outside).

### Questions posed for global consultation (selected)
- Issue A: Indicate preferred choice: Option A1, Option A2, or Option A3; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any. Are there enhancements to the IPSAS-GFSM Alignment Dashboard that are necessary, and why?
- Issue B: Indicate preferred choice: Option B1, Option B2, or Option B3; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any.
- Issue C: Indicate preferred choice: Option C1 or Option C2; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any. Which areas of non-alignment between the GFSM and IPSAS should be prioritized and why?
- Issue D: Indicate preferred choice: Option D1, Option D2, or Option D3; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any. Do you agree that more detailed supporting guidance should be included outside the GFSM? Explain reasons.

### Annex 1 — Possible additional guidance topics (priorities)
- (a) Leases — bridging conceptual differences between statistical and current accounting standards.
- (b) Use and measurement of provisions, contingent assets and contingent liabilities.
- (c) Difference between depreciation and consumption of fixed capital.
- (c) Difference between impairment and remeasurement of assets.
- (d) Clarifying differences in valuation and time of recording for assets and liabilities.
- (e) Clarifying differences in revaluation methods for assets and liabilities and measuring changes in value due to exchange rates in the financial statements.
- (f) Expand current high-level reconciliation narrative into a more granular, modular crosswalk (e.g., standardized mapping tables from IPSAS line items to GFSM 2014 categories with a small set of consistently defined “adjustment buckets”).
- (g) Provide a recommended minimum mapping comparable across countries while allowing optional extensions for local charts of accounts to reduce reliance on institution-specific bridge tables.
- (h) Illustrate explicit decision rules (or a short decision tree) for:
  - (i) aligning IPSAS consolidation boundaries with the GFS general government sector and broader public sector;
  - (ii) identifying and treating extra-budgetary units, social security funds, and not-for-profit institutions;
  - (iii) handling public corporations and quasi-corporations where IPSAS group accounts may consolidate entities classified outside general government in GFS.
- (i) Provide clearer guidance on documenting consolidation adjustments between IPSAS and GFS.
- (j) Add numerical examples for complex arrangements that have expanded in prevalence and materiality, such as public-private partnerships and concessions, government guarantees and standardized guarantee schemes, employee pension obligations, and increasingly sophisticated financial instruments, including reclassification between transactions and other economic flows and the bridge from accounting data to statistical stocks and flows.
- (k) Provide a bridge table or tool focused on GFS compilers’ logic, referencing the economic classification (revenues, expenses, economic flows, and asset/liability valuation) and linking them with relevant SCoA categories.

*Source: GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: May 2026 (discussion note and drafting team recommendations).*

### 2.27 Relationship Between GFS and IPSAS / IFRS

### 2.27 Relationship Between GFS and IPSAS / IFRS

### Summary findings and context
- The increasing use of accrual based accounting frameworks by governments and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) means that GFS compilers could rely more heavily on accounting data. Such frameworks include International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), and national, or jurisdiction-specific public sector and corporate reporting frameworks.
- Similarities between accounting and statistical guidelines are positive, but some data presentation requirements differ even though recognition and measurement requirements are aligned, and some additional data need to be collected in certain areas because of key recognition and measurement differences.
- Appendix 6 of the GFSM 2014 is now outdated due to changes in IPSASB guidance since 2014, and practical bridging tools are limited, especially for complex areas such as leases.
- The International Public Sector Financial Accountability Index 2025 Status Report estimates that by 2030, 77 (81%) jurisdictions projected to be reporting on accrual will make use of IPSAS Standards.
- Since GFSM 2014 was published, 18 new IPSAS Standards have been published; the overall number of accrual IPSAS Standards has increased from 32 to 41 as of January 2026.
- The IPSASB maintains an IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard and an IPSAS-IFRS Comparative Dashboard; the IPSASB project ‘Strengthening Linkages Between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM’ and Exposure Draft 94 (published February 2026) aim to identify:  
  (a) Data recognition requirements in IPSAS Standards aligned with the GFSM 2014;  
  (b) Differences in data presentation requirements between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM 2014 even where recognition and measurement requirements are aligned; and  
  (c) Additional data that needs to be collected for GFSM 2014 reporting because of key recognition and measurement differences.
- IPSASB launched a project in June 2023 to replace IPSAS 1 on Presentation of Financial Statements, expected to be concluded in December 2027; the IPSASB consultation launched in April 2026 does not support GFSM-aligned presentation formats at this stage.

### Draft recommendations (high level)
- Revise the GFSM 2014 Appendix 6 comparison with IPSAS to reflect changes since 2014, while clarifying its relevance for countries that apply national public sector accounting frameworks or IPSAS-based standards, and provide clearer explanations of key areas of alignment and difference; remove some current information to focus on high-level issues.
- Extend and maintain the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard to create a coordinated alignment opportunity tracking resource, and encourage use of the IPSASB’s regularly updated IPSAS–IFRS Comparative Dashboard, as well as IPSAS 22 implementation guidance, rather than developing duplicative resources.
- Produce supplementary guidance (separate from the GFSM itself) to give practical instructions on how to bridge accounting data into GFS (and vice versa), allowing for more frequent updates as IPSAS changes.
- Prioritize detailed practical compilation guidance (outside the GFSM) on complex transactions (e.g., leases) where divergences are most material and additional data will be required based on matching stakeholder priorities with available resources.
- Recommended adoption of Option A3 (extend and maintain the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard jointly with IPSASB) to maximize uptake of alignment opportunities with only limited additional workload for IMF and IPSASB staff.
- Support from the GFS Advisory Committee (GFSAC) at the May 2026 meeting for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option A3.

### Issue A — Opportunities for further alignment of GFSM and IPSAS
- Background:
  - IPSASB Strategy and Work Program 2024-2028 emphasizes alignment with GFS.
  - The IPSASB Policy Paper on the Process for Considering GFS Reporting Guidelines During Development of IPSASs sets out the IPSASB process for reducing unnecessary differences between GFS and IPSAS reporting.
  - High-level guidance in the 2025 SNA (in particular Tables 28.1 and 30.1) highlights differences and similarities between statistical standards and accounting standards.
- Options identified:
  - Option A1: Status quo—GFSM opportunities identified on a project-by-project basis while IPSASB identifies these through its IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard as well as its process for considering GFS guidance during the development of IPSAS Standards.
    - Pros: No additional work for either organization; IPSASB can identify opportunities via its processes.
    - Cons: No coordinated overview; lack of structured ongoing mechanism; lower profile for alignment beyond individual projects.
  - Option A2: IMF Statistics Department develops its own central tracking mechanism to identify opportunities to increase alignment with IPSAS Standards.
    - Pros: Increased visibility of opportunities; stronger basis for identifying, monitoring and promoting opportunities.
    - Cons: Increased workload for IMF staff; risk of duplication or differences with IPSAS-GFSM Alignment Dashboard.
  - Option A3: IMF and IPSASB extend and maintain the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard to coordinate and maximize uptake of opportunities for further alignment.
    - Pros: Maximizes uptake by providing coordinated overview; significantly less work for IMF staff than Option A2.
    - Cons: Some limited additional workload for both IMF and IPSASB staff compared with Option A1.
- Draft recommendation:
  - Adopt Option A3 to provide a coordinated overview of opportunities and whether they are being taken forward.

### Issue B — Revisions to Appendix 6 of the GFSM
- Background:
  - GFSM 2014 Appendix 6 currently provides a high‑level overview of relationships between GFS reporting guidelines and IPSAS Standards but needs updating to reflect IPSAS changes since 2014 and the IPSASB Exposure Draft 94 analysis, as well as upcoming GFSM changes.
  - Many countries apply national public sector accounting frameworks or IPSAS-converged frameworks; some public corporations use national GAAP rather than IFRS.
- Options identified:
  - Option B1: Limited editorial changes only.
    - Pros: Revises Appendix 6 to reflect significant GFSM and IPSAS changes since 2014; minimizes resources required.
    - Cons: Increased risk guidance becomes out of date as IPSAS Standards change.
  - Option B2: Reduce the level of detail and provide separate external resources to provide detailed information on linkages between GFS and IPSAS.
    - Features: Remove some detail to focus on data alignments and differences; provide links to external resources such as the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard and IPSAS–IFRS Comparative Dashboard; acknowledge national standards and IPSAS-converged frameworks; update Box A6.1 and review references in Chapters 1, 3 and 4.
    - Pros: Revises Appendix 6 to reflect significant changes; increases focus on alignment and key differences; reduced risk that guidance becomes out of date; enables use of complementary resources.
    - Cons: Increased resource requirement compared with Option B1; guidance not all in one place; need for sufficient additional guidance to enable compilers to understand alignments and differences.
  - Option B3: Provide more detailed guidance within Appendix 6 on similarities and differences between statistical guidance and IPSAS Standards.
    - Features: Could include extended relationship between GFS statements and IPSAS presentations; transaction/instrument-level guidance for each GFS economic transaction/stock category; content and appetite to be assessed with stakeholder input.
    - Pros: Revises Appendix 6 to reflect all relevant changes; potential to address main compiler needs in one place.
    - Cons: Greater resource requirements; risk of being over-long and obscuring key alignment areas; significantly increased risk guidance becomes out of date as IPSAS Standards change.
- Considerations:
  - Option B2 seeks a balance between relevance and timeliness by focusing Appendix 6 on high-level conceptual relationships and directing readers to external, regularly updated resources for details.
  - Practical compilation guidance on complex transactions (e.g., leases) is prioritized to be developed outside the GFSM to allow more frequent updates as IPSAS changes.

### Key statistics and timelines
- 77 (81%) jurisdictions projected to be reporting on accrual will make use of IPSAS Standards by 2030 (International Public Sector Financial Accountability Index 2025 Status Report estimate).
- 18 new IPSAS Standards published since GFSM 2014; accrual IPSAS Standards increased from 32 to 41 as of January 2026.
- IPSASB project to replace IPSAS 1 launched in June 2023 and is expected to conclude in December 2027.
- IPSASB Exposure Draft 94 published in February 2026 focuses on Linkages Between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM 2014 (Amendments to IPSAS 22).

*GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: May 2026*

### 23. The drafting team recommends adopting Option B2 as although there is an increased resource

### Relationship between the GFSM 2014 and IPSAS/IFRS: Draft Recommendations and Practical Guidance (GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: May 2026)

### Summary recommendation on Appendix 6 alignment (Options B)
- Drafting team recommendation: adopt Option B2.
- Rationale:
  - Option B2 increases focus on specific alignment areas and where the key differences lie.
  - Compared with Options B1 and B3, Option B2 minimizes the risk that revised Appendix 6 guidance becomes out of date (for example, because of further changes in IPSAS Standards).
  - Allows referencing relevant external resources (such as the IPSAS-IFRS Comparative Dashboard) where appropriate.
- GFSAC input:
  - At the May 2026 GFSAC meeting there was support for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option B2.

### Issue C — Practical guidance to bridge accounting and statistical differences: background
- Key needs:
  - GFS compilers require access to underlying detailed accounting data; Standard Chart of Accounts (SCoA) must be sufficiently detailed to facilitate both financial and statistical reporting.
  - With access to underlying accounting data, compilers can aggregate and organize data as required to produce accurate GFS.
  - Where recognition and/or measurement differences exist between IPSAS Standards and the GFSM 2014, the SCoA must include additional data to meet both frameworks’ requirements.
- Benefits of a multi-dimensional integrated SCoA:
  - Generate budgets, budget execution reports, financial statements, and statistical reports from a common data source.
  - Reduce reconciliation burdens, improve timeliness, and enhance credibility by ensuring one dataset serves multiple purposes.
- Question posed:
  - Whether current guidance meets compiler needs or further guidance is required, and whether that guidance should be general or focused on specific issues.

### Options to address Issue C
- Option C1: Provide additional general guidance
  - Existing resources cited include:
    - The World Bank publication – A Good Practice Outline of the Multipurpose Chart of Accounts, 2019
    - The IMF publication – Chart of Accounts: A critical Element of the Public Financial Management Framework, 2011
    - IPSAS-ISS Alignment Dashboard
    - The proposed new IPSAS 22 Implementation Guidance
  - Pros:
    - Could be tailored to provide additional guidance on key areas of difference between GFSM and IPSAS Standards in the final version of the update.
  - Cons:
    - Considerable initial development resources required.
    - Would need to be regularly updated to reflect IPSAS Standards changes.
    - Potential to duplicate or contradict existing guidance, particularly the World Bank publication.
- Option C2: Provide additional guidance on specific areas (primarily outside of the GFSM)
  - Rationale:
    - The proposed new IPSAS 22 Implementation Guidance likely will highlight where additional data needs to be collected for GFSM 2014 reporting.
    - Appendix 6 could include references to external resources (IPSAS-IFRS Comparative Dashboard, Chapter 28 of the 2025 SNA) and IPSASB staff guidance on consolidation.
    - Additional targeted guidance (developed outside the GFSM) can avoid duplication.
  - Example need:
    - Leases — significant conceptual differences mean additional practical guidance would be helpful.
  - Pros:
    - Guidance can meet GFS compiler needs in specific areas while minimizing the need for familiarity with other guidance sources.
  - Cons:
    - Initial development resources required.
    - Care required to avoid duplicating or contradicting existing guidance.

### Draft recommendation on Issue C
- Drafting team recommendation: adopt Option C2 to target scarce resources on particular problem areas.
- Implementation approach:
  - Ask the GFS community which non-alignments between GFSM and IPSAS cause the most problems for compilers and which specific guidance would have most impact, considering existing guidance sources.
  - A list to help prioritize specific core areas is available in Annex 1.
- GFSAC input:
  - At the May 2026 GFSAC meeting there was support for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option C2.

### Issue D — High-level reconciliations between GFS and accounting source data: background
- Relevance confirmed at May 2025 GFSAC meeting.
- Illustrative example: United Kingdom’s Whole of Government Accounts (WGA).
  - Annex A of the 2023–24 WGA (published July 2025) presents reconciliations between financial statements and the National Accounts, including detailed bridges for the balance sheet and statement of performance, with explanatory discussion and diagrams.
- Linkages:
  - Project links with GFSM Update Research Project 2.31 on Fiscal Analysis and Policymaking.
  - Research Project 2.31 examines how GFS outputs are applied in fiscal analysis (fiscal space, risk, sustainability assessments) and may produce guidance on supplementary information and practical applications relevant to linkages between accounting and statistics.

### Options to address Issue D
- Option D1: Status quo — no guidance
  - Pros: No additional work.
  - Cons: No additional guidance; opportunity missed to raise profile of issue.
- Option D2: High-level guidance in updated GFSM and more detailed supporting guidance outside the GFSM
  - Features:
    - Streamline Appendix 6 by removing details to increase focus on data alignments and main differences, including very high-level guidance on reconciliations between GFS and accounting source data.
    - Keep detailed supporting guidance on reconciliations involving the SCoA as an external resource.
  - Pros:
    - Provides additional guidance while minimizing impact on GFSM length.
    - Avoids jurisdiction-specific detailed differences.
    - Minimizes additional work in GFSM while improving likelihood that guidance addresses main reconciliation needs.
  - Cons:
    - May not provide sufficient guidance for all compilers.
    - Significant additional work required to provide guidance outside the GFSM.
- Option D3: Provide detailed guidance in the GFSM
  - Pros:
    - Maximizes chances of meeting compiler needs.
    - Avoids determining split between high-level and detailed guidance.
  - Cons:
    - Significant additional work required.
    - Moves GFSM away from being principles-based.
    - Maximum impact on GFSM length because of jurisdictional differences.

### Draft recommendation on Issue D
- Drafting team recommendation: adopt Option D2 to provide guidance in an emerging area while avoiding jurisdiction-specific detailed differences and minimizing additional work.
- GFSAC input:
  - At the May 2026 GFSAC meeting there was support for the Task Team’s recommendation of Option D2.

### Expected outcomes (as recommended by the drafting team)
- Update Appendix 6:
  - Revise the GFSM 2014 Appendix 6 comparison with IPSAS to reflect new and updated IPSAS since 2014.
  - Clarify relevance for countries applying national public sector accounting frameworks or IPSAS-based standards.
  - Provide clearer explanations of key differences and alignments (as indicated in Option B2).
- Reference resources:
  - Encourage continued development and use of the IPSAS–GFSM Alignment Dashboard as a joint reference tool for statistical and public sector accounting communities.
  - In coordination with IPSASB, the dashboard could be extended and maintained to identify areas of alignment and non-alignment and track opportunities arising from updates to both frameworks.
  - Where relevant, reference the IPSAS–IFRS Comparative Dashboard and IPSAS 22 implementation guidance rather than developing duplicative resources.
- Develop bridging guidance outside GFSM as necessary:
  - Produce supplementary guidance (separate from the GFSM) to give practical instructions on how to bridge accounting data into GFS (and vice versa) for source data prepared under IPSAS, IFRS, national GAAP or other frameworks.
  - Allow more frequent updates as frameworks change.
  - Initially prioritize areas with significant conceptual differences (as discussed in Option C2).
- Prioritize detailed practical compilation guidance on complex transactions:
  - Develop practical supplementary guidance (outside the GFSM) to adjust IPSAS/IFRS-based accounting data for GFS purposes in areas such as leases, where conceptual differences remain significant and additional data are required.
  - Acknowledge it will not be possible to provide detailed guidance for all national frameworks.
  - Locating guidance outside the GFSM allows more flexible updates as accounting standards evolve.

### Preliminary views of the GFSAC
- An earlier version of the discussion note was discussed at the GFSAC meeting of May 2026.
- The discussion note addresses suggestions made by GFSAC members at that meeting.
- Task team recommendations are consistent with the preliminary views of most GFSAC members.

### Questions posed for global consultation (selected)
- Issue A: Opportunities for further alignment of GFSM and IPSAS
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option A1, Option A2, or Option A3; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any.
  - Are there enhancements to the IPSAS-GFSM Alignment Dashboard that are necessary, and why?
- Issue B: Revisions to Appendix 6 of the GFSM
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option B1, Option B2, or Option B3; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any.
- Issue C: Development of practical guidance on bridging differences
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option C1 or Option C2; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any.
  - Which areas of non-alignment between the GFSM and IPSAS should be prioritized and why?
- Issue D: High-level reconciliations between GFS and accounting source data
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option D1, Option D2, or Option D3; explain reasons and propose alternatives if any.
  - Do you agree that more detailed supporting guidance should be included outside the GFSM? Explain reasons.

### Annex 1 — Possible additional guidance topics to supplement the update of Appendix 6 (list of potential priorities)
- (a) Leases – bridging conceptual differences between statistical and current accounting standards.
- (b) Use and measurement of provisions, contingent assets and contingent liabilities.
- (c) Difference between depreciation and consumption of fixed capital.
- (c) Difference between impairment and remeasurement of assets.
- (d) Clarifying differences in valuation and time of recording for assets and liabilities.
- (e) Clarifying differences in revaluation methods for assets and liabilities and measuring changes in value due to exchange rates in the financial statements.
- (f) Expand current high-level reconciliation narrative into a more granular, modular crosswalk (e.g., standardized mapping tables from IPSAS line items to GFSM 2014 categories with a small set of consistently defined “adjustment buckets”).
- (g) Provide a recommended minimum mapping comparable across countries while allowing optional extensions for local charts of accounts to reduce reliance on institution-specific bridge tables.
- (h) Illustrate explicit decision rules (or a short decision tree) for:
  - (i) aligning IPSAS consolidation boundaries with the GFS general government sector and broader public sector;
  - (ii) identifying and treating extra-budgetary units, social security funds, and not-for-profit institutions;
  - (iii) handling public corporations and quasi-corporations where IPSAS group accounts may consolidate entities classified outside general government in GFS.
- (i) Provide clearer guidance on documenting consolidation adjustments between IPSAS and GFS.
- (j) Add numerical examples for complex arrangements that have expanded in prevalence and materiality, such as public-private partnerships and concessions, government guarantees and standardized guarantee schemes, employee pension obligations, and increasingly sophisticated financial instruments, including reclassification between transactions and other economic flows and the bridge from accounting data to statistical stocks and flows.
- (k) Provide a bridge table or tool focused on GFS compilers’ logic, referencing the economic classification (revenues, expenses, economic flows, and asset/liability valuation) and linking them with relevant SCoA categories.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/proposed-recommendations-gfsm-2014-update-125-relationship-between-sna-and-ipsasifrs.pdf_