The content on this page has been converted from PDF to HTML format using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool as part of our ongoing efforts to improve accessibility and usability of our publications. Note:
- No human verification has been conducted of the converted content.
- While we strive for accuracy errors or omissions may exist.
- This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a definitive or authoritative source.
- For the official and verified version of the publication, refer to the original PDF document.
If you identify any inaccuracies or have concerns about the content, please contact us at [email protected].
UK Taxonomy Suite 2025 Feedback Statement
The FRC does not accept any liability to any party for any loss, damage or costs howsoever arising, whether directly or indirectly, whether in contract, tort or otherwise from any action or decision taken (or not taken) as a result of any person relying on or otherwise using this document or arising from an omission from it.
The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2024
The Financial Reporting Council Limited is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number 2486368. Registered Office: 8th Floor, 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS
1. Feedback statement
Summary of Consultation responses
1.1An assessment of Consultation responses on the FRC taxonomies from the public review period is as follows:
1.2The comments received have been helpful and constructive. They have been broadly supportive as far as general design and approach is concerned and they have not raised any fundamental flaws.
1.3Comment letters have been received from:
- CoreFiling
- Financial Reporting Council
1.4No comments were received via Yeti. No specific additional outreach was completed beyond the public consultation. It is important to note that Yeti (our comment tool) is open even after the close of consultation, so if users would like to suggest over the course of the next 6 months, then it will be logged and considered for next year’s workplan.
1.5In total, minimal points on tags or aspects of tags have been raised. The Taxonomies team has recorded all such issues and has considered all of them. There is no particular pattern to the various points raised. They range from queries on the technical attributes of particular tags to suggestions that particular points may need further clarification in the taxonomies. Detailed changes have been made as appropriate. Regardless of whether changes occur from the draft to final version of the Taxonomy Suite, we have responded to all who contacted us explaining what we propose and why or why we are not taking their suggestions forward.
1.6The Governance Committee and Technical Task Force considered the comments from the feedback, which the Development Team considered should be addressed by the Committee, at their meetings in September and October 2024.
1.7 Feedback on Draft Taxonomy Suite
Employee information disaggregation by gender, sex, and ethnicity
Feedback: In the draft taxonomy, concepts "Employee information [heading]" and its children were moved out of their original hypercubes (hypercube 9080 for most of the items, with two analysis items in 90801) and into three new hypercubes (hypercubes 9611, 9612 and 9613, or 96111, 96121 and 96131 for the analysis items). These new hypercubes include all the same dimensions as 9080 and 90801, but with the Sex, Gender or Ethnicity dimensions included as well. This makes it impossible to tag an overall total. The Sex, Gender and Ethnicity dimensions do not have default members. This means that filers would have to select dimension members for one of sex, gender or ethnicity when submitting these items. This would be a particular problem for AverageNumberEmployeesDuringPeriod, which is a mandatory item enforced by Companies House’s filing rules. Carrying the dimensionally unqualified fact forward to 2025 would result in an XBRL validation error in software because it is now expected to be qualified by a member of one of the Sex, Gender or Ethnicity dimensions.
Solution: We put the average number of employees items back in hypercubes 9080 and 90801, alongside the new hypercubes. This gives filers the option of submitting along the lines of sex, gender or ethnicity if they wish to, but does not force them to, which meets the ambitions of the workplan to ensure that all relevant concepts relating to employee information concepts can be disaggregated by gender, sex and ethnicity without increasing burden.
FRS 102 amendment specific changes
Supplier finance payment due dates comparison – FRS 102 Paragraph 7.20C(b)(ii)
Feedback: The concept name and label of the two concepts under "Ranges Payment Due Dates Heading" don’t seem specific enough.
Solution: We renamed the labels as "Range of payment due dates for liabilities that are part of the supplier finance arrangement” and “Range of payment due dates for comparable liabilities that are not part of any supplier finance arrangement".
Leases – lessee – usage of unchanged discount rate for remeasurement – FRS Paragraph 102 20.79
Feedback: The concept "Carrying amount at the end of the reporting period of lease liabilities which have been remeasured in that manner" is difficult to understand on its own because filers don’t know what manner of remeasurement it relates to. As per FRS 102, it relates to when "Entity has used an unchanged discount rate [true/false]" is 'true', but that is not obvious from the name or description.
Solution: We renamed the label here.
Leases – lessee – cash outflow – FRS 102 Paragraph 20.80(f)
Feedback: The concept "Total cashflow for leases, lessees" is hard to find because the name and label use the term 'cashflow', but the phrase in the standards (FRS 102 and IFRS 16) is 'cash outflow'.
Solution: We adapted the name and label to “Total cash outflow for leases, lessees”.
Leases – lessee – short term and low value commitments – FRS 102 Paragraph 20.82
Feedback: Concepts are missing to tag this disclosure.
Solution: On review of the existing taxonomy elements, it was agreed that there were sufficient concepts to tag this disclosure.
Revenue – explanation of unsatisfied performance obligations – FRS 102 Paragraph 23.137
Feedback: Concepts are missing to tag this disclosure.
Solution: On review of the existing taxonomy elements, it was agreed that there were sufficient concepts to tag this disclosure.
Financial Reporting Council 8th Floor 125 London Wall London EC2Y 5AS +44 (0)20 7492 2300 www.frc.org.uk
Follow us on Linked in or @FRCnews