What is materiality in accounting?

Materiality is the threshold at which financial information becomes significant enough to influence a reasonable person's decisions. Under U.S. GAAP, a misstatement is material if its magnitude makes it probable that someone relying on the financial statements would judge differently if the error were corrected. No fixed dollar amount defines materiality; it depends on the specific entity's size and circumstances.

How is materiality calculated?

There's no single formula. Auditors commonly start with benchmarks like 5% of pre-tax income, 1% of revenue, or 0.5% of total assets, then adjust based on qualitative factors and entity-specific risks. Performance materiality is typically set at 50-75% of overall materiality as a working buffer. The final threshold reflects professional judgment, not a mechanical calculation.

How does materiality apply to expense management?

Materiality determines which expense discrepancies finance teams investigate. High-value items like international flights are individually reviewed, while small transactions are sampled. Navan automates this prioritization by flagging out-of-policy expenses above configurable thresholds, helping audit teams focus on items most likely to be material.

What is the difference between materiality and performance materiality?

Materiality is the overall threshold: the level at which a misstatement would influence decisions. Performance materiality is a lower, working threshold (typically 50-75% of overall materiality) that auditors use during testing to account for undetected errors. The gap between the two provides a buffer so that the cumulative effect of uncorrected items stays below the overall materiality level.

Can a small dollar amount be material?

Yes. Qualitative factors can make any amount material regardless of size. A small payment to a government official, a deliberate misclassification to meet earnings targets, or a pattern of minor policy violations signaling control weaknesses are all qualitatively material. Both FASB and the SEC explicitly state that quantitative thresholds alone cannot dismiss a misstatement with qualitative significance.

How does materiality affect travel policy design?

Expense policy limits reflect materiality thinking. When a company sets a $300/night hotel cap or a $75 meal limit, it's making a judgment about which spending levels are significant enough to require justification. Navan enforces these thresholds at the point of booking, flagging exceptions before they become audit findings rather than catching them during post-trip review.

Navan - Business Travel Solutions & Expense Management

Materiality

Materiality is an accounting and auditing principle that determines whether an omission or misstatement in financial information is significant enough to influence the judgment of a reasonable person relying on that information, assessed based on entity-specific quantitative and qualitative factors.

Victoria Landsmann

•May 31, 2026•

5 minute read

Key Takeaways

Materiality is an accounting and auditing principle that determines whether an omission or misstatement in financial information is significant enough to influence the decisions of a reasonable person relying on that information. It applies to every aspect of financial reporting, from setting audit scope to evaluating whether an expense discrepancy warrants investigation.

FASB defines materiality as entity-specific: the magnitude of an omission or misstatement that would probably change or influence the judgment of a reasonable person, with no universal quantitative threshold prescribed [1].
Auditors commonly use benchmarks such as 5% of pre-tax income, 1% of total revenue, or 0.5% of total assets as starting points, but these are professional guidelines rather than fixed rules.
Navan's automated expense compliance tools flag transactions that exceed policy thresholds, helping finance teams focus audit attention on items most likely to be material.
Both quantitative size and qualitative factors (such as the nature of a transaction, regulatory sensitivity, or potential for fraud) determine whether information is material, meaning a small-dollar item can still be material if it signals a systemic issue [2].

What is Materiality?

Materiality is a foundational principle in accounting and auditing that establishes whether specific financial information is significant enough to affect the decisions of those who rely on it. Under U.S. GAAP, FASB defines a misstatement as material if, in light of surrounding circumstances, its magnitude makes it probable that a reasonable person's judgment would be changed or influenced by its inclusion or correction [1].

The concept exists because financial statements cannot capture every transaction with perfect precision. Small rounding differences, immaterial timing variances, and minor classification errors occur in every set of books. Materiality provides the framework for deciding which of these warrant attention and correction, and which can be left as-is without distorting the financial picture.

Critically, materiality is entity-specific. A $50,000 expense report discrepancy might be immaterial for a company with $5 billion in revenue but could be highly material for a startup with $2 million in annual spend. The FASB has explicitly stated that no general standards of materiality can be formulated to cover all circumstances because only those who understand the reporting entity's specific facts can make proper materiality judgments [1].

How Do Finance Teams Set Materiality Thresholds?

Setting materiality requires balancing quantitative benchmarks with professional judgment. While no authoritative body prescribes a fixed number, practitioners have developed widely used starting points.

Benchmark	Common Range	When It's Used
% of pre-tax income	3-5%	Profitable companies with stable earnings
% of total revenue	0.5-1%	Revenue-driven businesses or companies with volatile earnings
% of total assets	0.5-1%	Asset-heavy industries (manufacturing, real estate)
% of equity	1-2%	Financial institutions, capital-intensive sectors

Auditors then set performance materiality at 50-75% of overall materiality as a buffer against undetected misstatements [2]. This means if overall materiality for a $100 million revenue company is set at $1 million (1%), performance materiality might be $600,000. Any individual misstatement exceeding that amount triggers investigation.

For cost center managers reviewing travel and expense budgets, this framework translates directly: a variance of $5,000 in a $500,000 departmental travel budget (1%) might be below the company-wide materiality threshold but could still warrant review at the department level if it signals a pattern.

Materiality in Travel and Expense Management

Materiality has specific implications for how finance teams audit and manage corporate travel spending.

Audit sampling and scope. When external or internal auditors review T&E transactions, materiality determines the sample size and focus areas. High-value expense categories (international flights, group hotel blocks, conference sponsorships) are more likely to be individually tested because a single error could exceed the materiality threshold. Lower-value, high-volume transactions (taxi fares, meal receipts) are typically tested on a sample basis.

Policy violation thresholds. Companies set expense policy limits that implicitly reflect materiality thinking. A $75 meal limit or a $300/night hotel cap represents a judgment that spending above these amounts is significant enough to require justification. When travel policy thresholds align with the company's overall materiality framework, audit trail documentation becomes more defensible.

Aggregation risk. Individual expense items may fall below materiality thresholds, but their cumulative effect can be material. A pattern of $20 personal charges filed as business meals across 200 employees creates a $4,000 monthly exposure that would be material for many mid-market companies. The IFRS Practice Statement 2 emphasizes that materiality must consider items both individually and in aggregate [2].

Transform Your T&E Management with Navan

Make business travel work for everyone.

Get started

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Materiality Factors

The most common mistake in applying materiality is treating it as a purely numerical exercise. Both FASB and IFRS standards explicitly require consideration of qualitative factors that can make an otherwise small item material.

Quantitative factors focus on size: the dollar amount of a misstatement relative to a relevant benchmark (income, revenue, assets). A $10,000 error in a general ledger account might be quantitatively immaterial for a large enterprise.

Qualitative factors can override that conclusion:

Nature of the transaction: A $500 payment to a government official raises materiality concerns regardless of amount because of bribery and corruption risk.
Regulatory sensitivity: Errors in tax-related expense categorizations affect compliance obligations even if the dollar amount is small.
Trend indicators: A small but growing pattern of policy violations may signal control weaknesses that are material to the overall financial reporting environment.
Management intent: If a misstatement results from deliberate action rather than error, it is presumptively material regardless of dollar size, because it signals potential fraud.

The SEC reinforced this position in Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99, which remains the primary guidance on applying materiality in practice: companies cannot rely on quantitative thresholds alone to dismiss a misstatement that is qualitatively significant.

When Should Finance Teams Reassess Materiality?

Materiality isn't a one-time calculation. Finance teams should revisit their thresholds when circumstances change:

Company growth or contraction: If revenue doubles, the materiality threshold should scale accordingly, or audit procedures designed for a smaller company may catch too many immaterial items.
Industry or regulatory changes: New compliance requirements (such as updated IRS per diem rates or changes to international tax treaties) may shift which expense categories require closer scrutiny.
Mergers and acquisitions: Combined entities require a recalculated materiality based on the merged financial statements.
Travel program changes: A shift from decentralized to managed travel, or adoption of a new T&E platform, changes the risk profile of expense transactions and may warrant adjusted thresholds.

Auditing: The systematic examination of financial records that relies on materiality to determine scope, sample sizes, and which discrepancies require correction.
Tax Compliance: The process of meeting tax obligations, where materiality judgments determine which errors in expense categorization or reporting require correction before filing.
Accounts Payable: The total short-term debt owed to vendors, where materiality thresholds determine which invoice discrepancies are investigated versus accepted.

Sources

[1] FASB, "Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting," updated September 2024. https://storage.fasb.org/Conceptual%20Framework%20for%20Financial%20Reporting%20%28September%202024%29.pdf

[2] IFRS Foundation, "Practice Statement 2: Making Materiality Judgements," 2026 edition. https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/publications/html-standards/english/2026/issued/ps2.html

Frequently Asked Questions About Materiality

Materiality is the threshold at which financial information becomes significant enough to influence a reasonable person's decisions. Under U.S. GAAP, a misstatement is material if its magnitude makes it probable that someone relying on the financial statements would judge differently if the error were corrected. No fixed dollar amount defines materiality; it depends on the specific entity's size and circumstances.
There's no single formula. Auditors commonly start with benchmarks like 5% of pre-tax income, 1% of revenue, or 0.5% of total assets, then adjust based on qualitative factors and entity-specific risks. Performance materiality is typically set at 50-75% of overall materiality as a working buffer. The final threshold reflects professional judgment, not a mechanical calculation.
Materiality determines which expense discrepancies finance teams investigate. High-value items like international flights are individually reviewed, while small transactions are sampled. Navan automates this prioritization by flagging out-of-policy expenses above configurable thresholds, helping audit teams focus on items most likely to be material.
Materiality is the overall threshold: the level at which a misstatement would influence decisions. Performance materiality is a lower, working threshold (typically 50-75% of overall materiality) that auditors use during testing to account for undetected errors. The gap between the two provides a buffer so that the cumulative effect of uncorrected items stays below the overall materiality level.
Yes. Qualitative factors can make any amount material regardless of size. A small payment to a government official, a deliberate misclassification to meet earnings targets, or a pattern of minor policy violations signaling control weaknesses are all qualitatively material. Both FASB and the SEC explicitly state that quantitative thresholds alone cannot dismiss a misstatement with qualitative significance.
Expense policy limits reflect materiality thinking. When a company sets a $300/night hotel cap or a $75 meal limit, it's making a judgment about which spending levels are significant enough to require justification. Navan enforces these thresholds at the point of booking, flagging exceptions before they become audit findings rather than catching them during post-trip review.