Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada, Sixth Canadian Edition Solution Manual

Preview (16 of 659 Pages)

100%

Purchase to unlock

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 11Chapter 1A Survey of International Accounting

Loading page image...

2Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada,Sixth EditionA brief description of the major points covered in each case and problem.CASESCase 1In this case, students are introduced to the difference in accounting for R&D costs betweenIFRS and U.S. GAAP and asked to comment on whether one method is better than the other,as well as whether any part of R&D should be capitalized.Case 2(prepared by Peter Secord, Saint Mary’s University)In this real life case, students are asked to discuss the merits of historical costs vs. replacementcosts.Actual note disclosure from a company’s financial statements is provided as backgroundmaterial.Case 3(adapted from a case prepared by Peter Secord, Saint Mary’s University)A Canadian company prepares two sets of financial statement: one based on Canadian GAAP,and the other on U.S. GAAP.The reasons for some of the differences in numbers areinvestigated.Case 4This case is based on Homburg Invest Inc.’s 2006 financial statements.A reconciliation ofdifferencesbetweentwosetsoffinancialstatementsisrequiredalongwithabriefnoteexplaining why differences exist.Case 5This case is adapted from a CICA case.It provides details regarding a company`s activities aswell as financial details that were revealed as part of planning and interim work performed in thecontext of an audit of the financial statements.It places the student in the role of CA, reportingto the audit partner, and asks for a memo on the results of the interim audit work as well as anyissues that should be raised in an upcoming meeting between the partner and the client.

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 13PROBLEMSProblem 1(40 min.)A single asset is acquired, and students are asked to prepare and compare financial statementnumbers during the life of the asset using both a historical cost and a current value model.Problem 2(40 min.)Details of a European company that reports using IFRS are given along with specific detailsrelating to certain account balances.Students are asked to show how these balances shouldbe reported under 1) U.S. GAAP, and 2) IFRS using the facts provided.Students are alsoasked to reconcile Net Income and Shareholders` Equity to from IFRS to U.S. GAAP.WEB-BASED PROBLEMSProblem 1The student chooses a public company incorporated in China and listed on a U.S. stockexchange. The student answers a series of questions based on the company’s financialstatements. The questions are aimed at highlighting the differences between IFRS and U.S.GAAP.Problem 2The student chooses a public company incorporated in India and listed on a U.S. stockexchange. The student answers a series of questions based on the company’s financialstatements. The questions are aimed at highlighting the differences between IFRS and U.S.GAAP.Problem 3The student chooses a public company incorporated in Japan and listed on a U.S. stockexchange. The student answers a series of questions based on the company’s financialstatements. The questions are aimed at highlighting the differences between IFRS and U.S.GAAP.Problem 4The student compares the 2006 and most recent financial statements of Cadbury, a Britishchocolate manufacturer, and answers a series of questions aimed at highlighting the differencesbetween IFRS and U.S. GAAP.

Loading page image...

4Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada,Sixth EditionProblem 5The student compares the 2006 and most recent financial statements of Philips Electronics, aDutch company, and answers a series of questions aimed at highlighting the differencesbetween IFRS and U.S. GAAP.REVIEW QUESTIONS1.Accounting students and professionals need to be aware of the differences betweenaccounting practices in Canada and in other countries for three reasons.First, as themarkets become more and more international, there is a higher chance that they may needto interpret financial statements from other countries at some point in their career. Second,they may want to move to another country to further their careers, and they should have anawareness of the different accounting practices that may exist. However, the mostcompelling reason is that the profession is quickly moving toward harmonization ofaccounting practices around the world. Canada has moved towards this end withmandating conversion to IFRS by January 1, 2011. Accounting students and practitionersneed to be aware of the impact this move will have on their employers and clients.2.One factor that is causing a shift towards a global capital market is that market-driveneconomies are replacing many former communist economies, and the demand for capital isincreasing. As well, many countries are forming agreements with international allies, toincrease their competitiveness. Finally, improvements in computer and communicationtechnology are facilitating international trading and investing and allowing companies to listtheir shares on many exchanges throughout the world.3.Five factors that have affected a particular country's accounting standards are: the role oftaxation; the level of development of capital markets, especially the mix of debt and equityfinancing; differing legal systems; the ties, both current and historical, between the countryand other countries; and inflation levels.4.Countries with highly developed capital markets often have sophisticated investors whodemand current and useful accounting information and full disclosure. This leads to theestablishment of a body of generally accepted accounting principles that investors can rely

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 15upon and that companies must comply with. In countries where capital markets are not fullydeveloped, there are fewer suppliers of capital and these suppliers demand and receivewhatever information they require from companies. As a result there is less need forstandardized accounting principles.5.The assumption underlying many countries' accounting policies is that the monetary unit isstable. When this is the case, historical costs have meaning and there is no need for pricelevel adjustments. When the inflation level is sufficiently high in a country to make historicalcosts meaningless, accounting adjustments that provide for the impact of inflation havebeen made in order to provide information that is useful. In these countries we have seenprice level adjustments and/or current value accounting as part of the generally acceptedaccounting practices being used.6.In Canada items are usually listed from current to non-current, whereas in some countries,long-term assets are listed before current assets, and owners’ equity is listed beforeliabilities.7.Some of the differences between Canadian and U.S. GAAP are:•Canadians capitalize and amortize development costs (under certain circumstances)while they are expensed immediately in the U.S.•More U.S. companies use the LIFO method to calculate ending inventory and cost ofgoods sold, as it is allowable for tax purposes if used in the financial statements.Canadian companies favour weighted average and FIFO, as LIFO is not anacceptable alternative under GAAP.•There are also some differences in the accounting for post-retirement benefits.8.The IASB works to develop a single set of high-quality, global accounting standards that willbe used uniformly for financial reporting around the world.9.The convergence project between FASB and the IASB hopes to have IASB standardsacceptable for use by all companies required to report under the SEC rules in the UnitedStates. First, the two bodies will focus on the elimination of differences that appear capableof quick resolution and are not part of major projects of either of the boards. Then the twogroups plan on working together on contentious issues so that any standards issued by the

Loading page image...

6Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada,Sixth Editiontwo boards will have similar outcomes. The two organizations have recently outlined aroadmap towards conversion that could result in U.S. domestic companies reporting in IFRSby 2014. Currently, foreign public companies filing on U.S. stock exchanges are permittedto file their financial statements in accordance with IFRS without reconciliation to U.S.GAAP.10.At the end of 2009, over 100 countries had adopted IASB standards while a number ofcountries still did not allow their use. Three major holdouts were Canada, the United States,and Japan.In January 2006, the CICA announced it would adopt IASB standards for useby public companies effective January 1, 2011. The U.S. could convert as early as 2014 ifmajor differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS can be resolved by then. In August 2007,the ASBJ and the IASB agreed on a process for converging Japanese GAAP and IFRSs.Major differences between Japanese GAAP and IFRSs will be eliminated by 30 June 2011.The target date of 2011 does not apply to any major new IFRSs now being developed thatwill become effective after 2011.11. In January 2006, the CICA announced it would adopt IASB standards for use by publiclyaccountable enterprises effective in January 2011.12. Even if all the countries in the world adopt IFRSs, comparability will not completely exist ifpreparers do not interpret the standards on a consistent basis. The standards are broadbased and require professional judgment. Also some countries are adding additional“home-grown standards” to cover local conditions.13.The main reason the Accounting Standards Board decided to create a separate section ofthe CICA handbook for private enterprises was to address the cost/benefit discrepancy withrespect to smaller private companies’ ability to comply with GAAP. GAAP has becomeincreasingly complex and for smaller private enterprises this often means that the cost ofcomplying with such rules outweighs the benefit received from compliance. In 2002, theAcSB adopted differential reporting, which allows private enterprises choices with therespect to certain complex accounting standards (e.g. the option to use the cost method forinvestments that would otherwise require the equity method). In 2009, the AcSB decided tocreate a self-contained set of standards for private enterprises. These standards will beeffective in January 2011 with earlier adoption allowed starting in 2009.

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 1714.There are a few reasons why a private company would want to comply with IFRSs eventhough it is not required to do so. It may have plans to become publicly listed at some pointin the future and will then be required to comply with IFRS after January 1, 2011 as apublicly accountable enterprise. In this case it would make sense to prepare IFRScompliant statements in anticipation of the public transaction since the company would haveto provide multiple years of comparative financial statements that comply with IFRS. Aprivate company may have users of their financial statements that find IFRS statementsmore useful for their purposes (e.g. creditors, customers, partners, and other stakeholdersthat may receive the company’s financial statements). Given the global economy and theincreased number of countries that have converted to IFRS, this is more likely than it oncemight have been.15.It is true that financial statements are complicated by accounting methods, such as themethod of accounting for deferred income taxes, foreign currency translation, and so on.However, some of these complexities cannot be avoided. The business environment andbusiness transactions are themselves more complex. Since the financial statements try toreflect these business events, it is inevitable that the financial statements will be morecomplex. Thus, it is not accounting methods per se that make financial statements difficultto understand.Financial statements are not directed at the average person, so they cannot be criticized onthe grounds that they are beyond the comprehension of the “average person”. Instead,they are intended for users with a reasonable understanding of financial statements. Thequestion then becomes should additional explanations be provided for users who have areasonable understanding of the financial statements? The answer depends on what typeof information the “explanations” will contain.Additional explanations might be of three types:-They could provide more detail on information that is already contained in financialstatements. For example, certain dollar amounts reported in the financial statementsmight be broken down into more detail, or the significance of certain amounts might bediscussed;

Loading page image...

8Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada,Sixth Edition-They could make information that is currently in the financial statements easier tounderstand by explaining technical accounting terms and concepts used in thestatements; or-They could provide entirely new information not included in financial statements thatmight help users better understand the significance of the information that appears inthe financial statements.In all three cases, the information provided might concern the future or the past. It isimportant to note that for publicly accountable enterprises, there is already a considerableamount of supplemental information provided in a company’s MD&A. This documentprovides supplementary discussion of financial results and in many cases explanations ofaccounting treatments used in a company’s financial statements for the period. Further, it isimportant to note that at some point additional information may “overload” the user. Toomuch information may achieve the undesired result of making financial statements moredifficult to understand. This must be taken into account when considering supplementalinformation and explanations.MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS1.d2.d3.d4.b5.a6.b7.a8.d9.b10.c11.b12.d13.b14.a15.c

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 19CASESCase 1Students often assume that U.S. GAAP is superior and that all reporting issues can (or should)be resolved by following U.S. rules.However, the reporting of research and development costsis a good example of a rule where many different approaches can be justified and the U.S. rulemight be nothing more than an easy method to apply.In the United States, all such costs areexpensed as incurred because of the difficulty of assessing the future value of these projects.IFRS, as well as countries such as Canada, Brazil, Japan, and Korea, allow capitalization ofdevelopment costs when certain criteria are met.The issue is not whether costs that will have future benefits should be capitalized.Mostaccountantsaroundtheworldwouldrecommendcapitalizingacostthatleadstofuturerevenues that are in excess of that cost. The real issue is whether criteria can be developed foridentifying projects that will lead to the recovery of those costs.In the U.S., the FASB felt thatsuch decisions were too subjective and open to manipulation.History has shown that theamountofresearchanddevelopmentcostscapitalizedtendedtovaryasacompanyexperienced good years and bad.Conversely, under IFRS, development costs must berecognized as an intangible asset when an enterprise can show that the six criteria mentioned inthe question can be met.How easy is it for an accountant to determine whether the development project will result in anintangible asset, such as a patent, that will generate future economic benefits?For Korean businesses, research and development costs are capitalized when they are incurredin relation to a specific product or technology, when costs can be separately identified, andwhen the recovery of costs is reasonably expected.Can an accountant determine withappropriate accuracy whether the recovery of costs is reasonably expected?In the U.S., a conservative approach has been taken because of the difficulty of determiningwhether an asset has been or will be created. To ensure comparability, all companies arerequired to expense all R&D costs. As a result, some discoveries that prove to be very valuableto a company for years to come are expensed immediately. In other countries, companies willtend to capitalize a differing array of projects because of flexibility in their guidelines. Do the

Loading page image...

10Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada,Sixth Editionbenefits of consistency and comparability (each company expenses all costs each year)outweigh the cost of producing financial statements that might omit valuable assets from thebalance sheet? No definitive answer exists for that question. However, the reader of financialstatements needs to be aware of the fundamental differences in approach that exist inaccounting for research and development costs before making comparisons betweencompanies from different countries.Case 2(a) Can any alternative to historical cost provide for fair presentation in financial reportsor are the risks too great? Discuss.In most countries, when we refer to “fair presentation” or a “true and fair view” in the preparationof financial statements, we generally qualify the statement (as the auditors here have): “inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles.” That is, fair presentation has acontextual, rather than an absolute, meaning. In order for any presentation to be fair to the user,the basis of presentation must be known and understood, but does not necessarily have tofollow any one particular model.The first Company’s Act which included the phrase “a true and fair view” is now over 150 yearsold, and there is still some controversy as to whether the authors of this legislation intended“historical cost” to be a part of the model. The historical cost principle, as we know it, had not yetbeen fully articulated in textbooks and become a firm basis for accounting practice. As a resultof these factors, financial statements may be considered to provide “fair presentation,” whetherprepared in accordance with the historical cost convention, in terms of replacement cost, thepurchasing power units in a general price level adjusted model, or a variety of hybrid models.Note that U.S. accounting is hardly a pure historical cost model, with many exceptions tohistorical cost involved (mostly downward adjustments) in the scheme of asset valuation andearnings determination. The important issue is that the model employed is known, understood,and consistently followed. Although in Europe (and especially in the Netherlands), it is commonto encounter current value accounting, elsewhere (especially in Latin America) general pricelevel accounting and its variations are more common when changing prices are a problem.Arguably, current value (replacement cost) accounting is the model most likely to provide fairpresentation, especially where asset values are volatile, as historical costs become rapidly out

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 111of date. For many long-established companies, historical costs for some assets are significantlyout of date and of no value in support of managerial decisions. In managerial accounting, wehave long recognized that the relevant costs are the current costs. In some European countries,an approach to financial reporting has developed that adopts more of a managerial approachand seeks to provide the most relevant information for decision-making. As a result, manycompanies follow alternatives to historical cost, generally replacement cost, in the financialstatements.There are risks, however, that arise from the adoption of alternatives to historical cost. Some ofthese are the same risks that arise from the historical cost model in that the recorded amountmay soon be out of date. Prices may go up or down, and even “current costs” of prior periodsmay display no relationship to current costs at the present date. Cost is always cost in aparticular context and a cost determined for a particular context or decision may not be valid fora different context or decision and the user should be aware of this.The question of objective determination also arises. The reported values in current cost basisfinancial statements are not directly supportable by arms’ length transactions. This introducesthe risk of an important (and potentially deliberate) misstatement. This is the principal risk issuearising from current value accounting, and leads many countries to have highly detailed rules forthe preparation, audit, and publication of financial statement asset values under current cost.Current value accounting and general price level accounting are both responses to the problemof changing prices and the impact on financial reporting. Current value accountingdeparts fromthe historical cost basis of accounting, whereas general price level adjustment is not a departurefrom historical cost. General price level (“GPL”) accountingchanges the measuring unitin whichthe historical cost is reported, but does not change the underlying basis of valuation for items onthe income statement and balance sheet. Current value accounting changes this underlyingbasis of valuation. Historical cost is not restated; new values are determined, based on currentinformation, for all items on the balance sheet (with the exception of monetary items which arenot restated, as they are already stated at current values).Current value accounting has many variations, each of which uses a different valuation base. Allof these models bear little relation to historical cost accounting, and in many ways lessrelationship to GPL-adjusted amounts. In all cases, the historical cost relationship amongfinancial statement items is disregarded in favour of the new basis of accountability.

Loading page image...

12Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada,Sixth Edition(b) Discuss the relative merits of historical cost accounting and replacement costaccounting. Consider the question of the achievement of a balance between relevanceand reliability and the provision of a “true and fair view” or “fair presentation” in financialreporting.Students will provide a wide range of responses to this question; at this stage (unless they havebeen provided with supplementary material or have background from other courses) responseswill just scratch the surface. The following note may be helpful:Historical cost accounting has the advantage that it is verifiable, and therefore morereliable and free from bias than replacement cost accounting. Historical cost amountsare based on objective information and have the “paper trail” of an actual transactionthat provides support. Historical costs, however, are sunk costs and have limited value insupport of decisions. They are particularly deficient if a long time has passed since thetransaction occurred, or if there have been significant technical developments. Theseare serious difficulties which the accounting profession has tried to address through avariety of different mechanisms, but no other method has become universally acceptableas an answer to the problem and so historical cost accounting persists, largely becauseof inertia, and because no better model has emerged.Replacement cost accounting has the advantage of enhanced relevance because thevalues included have been determined at the current time, rather than at some uncertainpast date. These amounts may therefore be better for investment decisions thanhistorical costs. However, current costs are potentially deficient in that they might not beobjectively determined and lack reliability. At the worst, they could contain bias tosupport a particular management policy or decision. In other cases, they could beguesses or otherwise based on invalid information. Also, the use of current cost infinancial statements in no manner makes the financial statements more “accurate,”although (if the amounts are carefully and objectively determined) there may beadvantages in the fairness of presentation and therefore the relevance of financialstatement amounts.With respect to income measurement, in a period of inflation, historical cost accountingwill result in an overstatement of income. Income is overstated, as a portion of the

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 113reported profits must be reinvested in the business to maintain the productive capacityand not all profits are available for distribution. If all profits are distributed, the businesswill not have the capacity to replace the items that have been consumed in the processof earning income. Replacement cost accounting will alleviate this problem by chargingto expense the replacement cost of all items consumed. With replacement cost chargedto expense, the income remaining is a true income, potentially available for distributionwithout impairment of the productive capacity of the enterprise.A further important point is that both the preparer and the user of financial statementsshould understand the basis of preparation of the statements, and the strengths andweaknesses of the approach employed.CASE 3Case NoteAjax Communications presents the classic case of the conflict among the accounting standardsthat are in force in different jurisdictions. Each set of rules can be seen to be correct, althoughdramatically different amounts may be presented on a variety of dimensions. Certainly, thestandard-setters (and, generally, the accounting practitioners) of each jurisdiction believe thatthe rules in place locally are the best rules available, in that they present results that areconsistent with the prevailing views on a fair presentation of both financial performance andfinancial position. While the meaning of this concept can differ dramatically among jurisdictions,accounting standards in Canadaand the United States may differ in the detail yet are quitesimilar at the conceptual level of user orientation. Despite the conceptual similarity, the actualrules in place are quite different in some areas, and there is no guidance for the user inchoosing the right set of accounting standards to base decisions upon. Harmonization effortsare ongoing to resolve these differences, yet regardless of the changes in accountingstandards, there will remain differences in interpretation of the rules and differences in thepractices that are in place. For example, in Europe, more than 20 years of effort directed towardaccounting harmonization did not completely resolve differences in accounting practices in thecountries of the European Union. Efforts in North America are more recent but are proceedingrapidly.Responses to specific questions:

Loading page image...

14Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada,Sixth Edition(a) As John McCurdy, outline the initial approach that you will take in order to determine thereasons for the difference in the numbers.Items throughout the income statement, from total revenue through earnings per share, differbetween the two sets of financial statements, as do all the aspects of the balance sheetpresented.As a start, McCurdy may be able to determine where some of the difference arisesby examining the summary of significant accounting policies included with the financialstatements. This source will not identify all of the accounting policies in place. More detailedknowledge of the accounting policies in place could come from the specific notes to the financialstatements. In addition he should search for publications or web sites that discuss differences inaccounting policies among countries. One such publication is by the CICA under the titleSignificant Differences in GAAP in Canada, Chile, Mexico and the United States. A websiteprovided by Deloitte (www.iasplus.com) could also provide useful information. (This websitepresents comparisons of international accounting standards with those of other countriesincluding the United States and Canada.)(b)List some of the obvious items that need resolution and indicate some of the possiblecauses of the discrepancies.•Why is total revenue significantly higher in the U.S. for the same period? (Are theirrevenue recognition policies the same?)•Why are operating income and income before extraordinary items higher in Canada forthe same period? (Revenue differences would be part of the answer, but are there alsomajor differences in expenses?)•What is the nature of the extraordinary item, classified as such in the United States, andnot so in the U.S.? Is classification as an extraordinary item appropriate?•What is the nature of the accounting policy differences that have lead to such dramaticdifferences in asset valuation between the two sets of financial statements? (Twopossible reasons: (1) consolidation in Canada of some investments that would not beconsolidated in the U.S. financial statements; this might explain the differences in theinvestments account, and arises because there are different rules for the determinationof when an investment is classified as a subsidiary and consolidated; and (2) the use ofLIFO in the U.S. and FIFO in Canada might produce different results if there have beenmajor changes in inventory costs during the year.)

Loading page image...

Solutions Manual,Chapter 115•Given the higher asset values in the Canadian financial statements, the Canadian entitymay be using the revaluation option under IFRS.•What items, if any, have been deferred and are being amortized for Canadian purposesthat are directly expensed in the U.S. statements? (R&D comes to mind) Does thisaccount for the difference in intangibles?•A variety of other specific points could be raised, including, for example, policiesassociated with tax allocation.Although the differences represent a dilemma to the Board of Directors in this case, neither setof financial statements may be said to be unequivocally superior to the other for the purpose ofmaking investment decisions. This is the general dilemma of international comparisons, and aprincipal reason why accounting harmonization is so important.CASE 4(a)Net Income–Canadian GAAP$(96,083)Unrealized valuation changes(286,060)Revenue less operating expenses and COS(8,306)Goodwill impairment loss14,862Depreciation and amortization62,860Income taxes36,074Net income–IFRS$(276,653)(b)The major difference between the two net income numbers is contained in the accounting forthe company’s development properties and investment properties. Under Canadian GAAP,these properties are valued at the lower of depreciated cost and market, whereas under IFRS,these properties are valued on a yearly basis at fair market value with the unrealized gainsreported in income. The properties are not depreciated under IFRS.The difference in income tax is represented entirely by the future taxes that will be paid when(and if) these gains are actually realized.CASE 5Memorandum

Preview Mode

This document has 659 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Report

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

Modern Advanced Accounting in Canada 8th Edition Solution Manual

Modern Advanced Accounting In Canada, 7th Edition Test Bank

Accounting

Master Managerial Accounting Techniques

Controlling and Reporting of Real Assets

Team A Week 5 Problems

Sarbanes Oxley Act, GAAP and IFRS

Accounting Audit Final Exam MCQs 2015

Financial Reporting, Regulations, and Corporate Governance

IFRS or US GAAP Which is the Best Reporting Standard

Company

Explore

Study Tools