About this reference
Who this is for
The reader we write for is a group financial controller nine months past the decision to capitalise internal AI development spend, now mid-way through year-end close and board-pack preparation. She is not asking whether to capitalise. She is asking what useful life she can defend, which amortisation method fits, what triggers an impairment review, and how to build a carrying-value roll-forward and a ROI view the audit committee will not tear apart. The FP&A lead and the technical-accounting owner read here too. Every page is written to be lifted into a memo or a board pack with its citation intact.
Why standards-anchored, not vendor-driven
Most writing on AI cost sits on one side of a chasm. The accounting standards explain how an intangible is recognised and amortised but never treat the token as the unit of measurement. The FinOps and CFO sources meter token spend but stop at the profit and loss account and never reach the balance sheet. This reference deliberately spans both, and it anchors every position to primary IFRS and FASB text rather than to a vendor narrative. No product is being sold here, so no treatment is being talked up to suit one.
What is in and out of scope
- In scope: measuring capitalisable token spend, carrying the resulting intangible, and reporting it under IAS 38 and IAS 36, with US GAAP context.
- Out of scope: the capitalise-versus-expense decision itself, which is settled before a reader arrives here.
- Out of scope: tax treatment, transfer pricing, and jurisdiction-specific filings, which turn on facts this reference cannot see.
Not accounting advice
This is a reference. It sets out defensible positions and the paragraphs they rest on, and it flags where judgement is required. It does not replace your auditor or your own technical-accounting judgement on your specific facts. Every worked figure on the site is an illustrative example, never real company data.