AccmTNTING STANDARDS OVERLOAD
An Honors Thesis (ID 499)
By
Terry M. Rubenalt
Thesis Director
Ball State University
Muncte, Indiana
June, 1983
SpCol!
The:)S
/..-D
,)!+<39
.t-4
'\ c:, (7~\
,
w......
4ORC63
ACr:OUNTTNr;
S"1t..NDt..~DS
OV":RLOAD
Wide sAgments of the busjness cornrnuntty an0. thp accounting
professi0n h8vr; become increas"inp'ly concerned ahout, an(9 critical of, the prolffpration over the past several yeATs
p1ex
an~
detailed accounting standards.
o~
com-
The mounting frustAtinn
with complicated meAsurement rulAs such as tl1e stan1(H'ds on
lease acrountinr, interperiod tax alloration, business comhinations
an~
interest capitalization indicates tl1at many
acrountfn~
standards users now believe thAt the situation has reache1 the
point of accounting standards overload.
The accounting
standar~s
overlOAd syndrome is ap,arent in
bus"inesses of all sizes, but the brunt of the
bur~en
falls on
small busiresses because they are least able to beAr i+;s C0St.
In 1Q76, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) committeA on gel1A r al 1 y acrepted aC 0 ol1nt i ng principles for srnall and/or closely held businAsses recommended
relief for small businpsses frorn the increasing bl1 r dpn of financia1 staternent disclosure
the size of ownership
ap~lication
o~
require~pnts
an entity
sl1ou1~
but conclude1 tl1at
not result in tl1e
of different measurement standards. 1
Th p AICPA
established the Derieux committee in 1q78 to study the viability and prospects of such firrns.
i~entified
accountinp
stRnda~ds
lems confronting such firms
an~
The report of thAt committep
ovprload as one
o~
thp many prob-
rAcornmendpd that tl1e AICPA ap-
polnt a speciAl committeA to study alternate means of providing
2
additional relief from accounting standards that are not costeffective for small businesses.
2
In the spring of 1981, the AICPA board of directors established the special committee on accounting
stan~ards
overload
(the speciAl com~ittee) as recommended by the Derieux committee.
On December 23, 1981, the special committee issued, for public
comment through May 31, 198?, a discussion paper describing its
deliberations and the evidence it considered and setting forth
its tentative conclusions ann recommendations. 3
This paper discusses the means and prospects of providing
relief from accounting standards overload against the background
of those developments.
!h~_~!2.£Q!!~:!'Q!!_2.!_1h~_~!QQ1~~
The perception of accounting standards overload is but one
aspect of the increasing complexity of the economic, social, cultural, scientific, and political environment in which all professions must function today.
Regulations have multiplied in
all areas of life incl.uding profeSSional regulations and standards.
The proliferation of accollnting standards is only one
facet of the explosion of regulations.
Other facets include
the burdens arising from governmental rules and regulations,
detailed tAX laws and involved procedures
an~
routines created
in the private sector to deal with the increasing complpxity
of businesA and the environment in which business operates.
CPAs who are general practitioners must keep up with technical strmnards ann regul ations in many areas.
Sharing top
billing with accounting and financial reportinf is the whole
3
area of tRxes--practitioners must deRl with all the complexities of the income tax lRws and the regulations
stantly changing.
th~t
~re
con-
To these must be added the area of information
systems and the need for at least a working understanding of the
problems in
are~s such as labor and pension laws. 4
The
own~rs
and managers of those businesses look to CPAs for counsel.
For
practitioners to be able to serve clients adequately, they must
keep up with developments in all of those areas.
The first step in finding a solution to a problem is to
identify its size.
To find a solution to the problem confront-
ing the accounting profession, accounting standards overlORd
should be viewed from two
perspectives~that
of small businesses
and the users of their financiRl statements and that of the practitioners who serve those businesses.
§~~ll_~~~i!~~~~~~_~g~_!g~_~~~!~_Q!_~g~i!_!ig~g£i~l_§!~1~~~g1~
The problems created for the business community by accounting standards
overlo~d
should first be viewed apart from what-
ever problems practitioners
standards.
busi~esses
mount.
m~y
hRve in keeping un with those
In considering this issue, the concerns of small
and the users of their
fin~ncial
statements are para-
Owners of small businesses perceive an
a~co\lnting
stand-
ards overload becaus p of the cost of implementing increasingly
complex standards and because they believe that the information
th~t
results from applying some of those
stan~ards
sense to them or to those who use their financiRl
Acc0unting standards imnose both direct
on businesses.
R~d
does not
ma~p
statements. 5
in~irect
costs
There are the direct costs of producing the
4
information required by accounting standard8.
o~portunity
mation
Ther p is also an
cost: time and money spent on develoninp
req~ired
t~e
infor-
by accounting standards are not available to de-
velop other information
t~at
may be more useful to
and the users of their financial statements.
bu~inesse8
Both of these
costs are relatively bigger burdens on small bU8inpsses than on
large businesses.
Cur r e n t s t an dar d s r e qui r e
<=I
11_ bus j n e sse s t 0 f 011
01.,
the sam p
measurement rules when reporting to outside parties who require
financi?l statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 6
However, the cost of producing
information to meet some standards is a greater proportion of
available resources for a small businpss than it is for a large
business.
If the benefits of the required information to the
usprs of a small business's financial statements do not exceed
their cost, the point of overload has been reached.
In addition, costs and benefits of financial statempnts
used within a business or for other limited purposes differ from
those of financial statements for olltside p?rties.
Larg p busi-
nesses with their own accounting staffs are free to prepare interim or special-purpose financial statements that omit disclosures required by GAAP or otherwise depart from GAAP. 7
Small
businesses, however, usually mllst rely on their outside accollntants to prepare those types of financial statements, and the
outside accountants are not free to simply ignore those standards that the accountant or the client believes are not relevant in the circumstances.
The result is that the client incurs
5
dire~t
an
C08~S
op~,ortun:i
both
th~'
arns and
wit~
no
perceive~
beneft~s.
ty cost because the cl
ien~
The client also incurs
canno+; aff'ord to pay frH'
inforrnC'lt;lon npcessary to comply wi.th a"counting st8not~p
other
inforrna~lon
Thus, the accounting
belleven to be more usefUl.
stand8r~s
overload issue for sm8'1
businesses C8n be adnressen in two parts.
The first relates
small busin,::lsses and prOdllf'e general-purpose
to financial statement; users.
info1"m~+;i(m
The second relates to
of possible relief in situations when
a~counting
t~p
useful
question
principles are
not. signifi . . r:lnt in a pr:lrti('ula r situ8tton, such as for intprim
reports.
In short, the
secon~
issue is whether GAAP ftnr:lncial
statements--annual or interim-are needed by owners anri
m~naee-
ment of small businesses and by the users of their financial
stCltr·ment.s.
The Practitioner
---------------The practitioner i8 cau["ht in the midflle bet,,7een the demanns of professional
s~andards
an~
the discontent of
smql~
buni-
ness clients with the burden those standards i~pORe on them. 8
Unquestionably, the world i8 more
it was twenty ye8rs ago
an~
complic~ted
todav
t~an
snme degree of complexity in ac-
countinc strondards is a natural outerowth of our complp"'>(" environment.
It nevertheless is a burden on
t~e
praf'tttione r to
falls on prar>ti-t;ioners in both large and small bllstness uni.ts.
6
All practitioners need to have a working knowledge of thp
professional literature to be ahlp to identify a
proble~,
and to
know where to look for the answer.
However, they do not nepd to
know the answers to every problem.
Thp major diffprence between
large ann small
pr~ctices
is that large practices may assign
individ\l~ls,
on either a full-time or a part-time baRis, to be
g
available for consultation on various problems.
Sm~ll practices
may find it more difficult to support thp kind of in-house capacity to deal with all the questions that can arisp.
However, practitioners in small business units can and do
avail themselves of
capacities.
equa1~y
acceptable altprnatives to in-housp
Professional organizations have developed programs
to provide small practices with conSUltation services similar
to those available in-house in large practices.
The largest
such service is the AICPA Technical Information Service (TIS).
An AICPA
may obtain the assistance of the TIS on any
me~ber
accounting or auditing problem by letter or by a toll frep telephone ca11.
11
TIS questions and answers on matters of wide in-
terest are published in AICPA Technical Practice Aids availahle
----------------------------in loose-leaf and paperback form.
The'substantial increAse in
thp use of the TIS over the past year suggpsts that there mpy
have been, and
m~y
still be, a substantial number of members
who are not aware of either the availability or the value of
.11
the TIS serVIce.
Some state societies al.so sponsor consultation services,
which afford practitioners the opnortunity to discuss their
accounting and auditing problems--and sometimes tax,
m~n~gement
7
qUAlified consultants.
hi~~ly
tW0 attractive features.
w~o
usually has a good
Such
First,
consultAti~n
t~e
consult~nt
servi~es
i
e
a practitioner
of the problems
understan~ing
h~ve
a~~reR~ed
Secona, the consultant if: located il1 the sarrp state as the practitioner and is likely to be fAmiliar
wi~h
10rA1 laws, conditions
or othpr fpc tors that mAy be relevant to an apnropriate
res~-
lution of the issues involved.
The discussion paper issued bv the special
a broad approach to
iaenti~yinp
possihle solutions to arcounting
issues
t~e
st~ndards
al1~
comYf1i~tep
ta~ps
eVAluates several
overload.
The special
com~ittee
re,com rr el1ds an apnroach for the Financial Accounting
Standards
Boar~
(FASB) to pursue in prov i dil1g a long-term solu-
tion and presents a proposal el1couragtng
use of inrome tax
basis acconnting to provine im'l1ediate short-term relief. 12 Each
of these proposals is discussed in
t~p
wi~er
follo~ing
sections.
The speclal cO'l1 m itte e acknowledged in its tentative report
that its proposal does not provide a final solution to the problem or accounting
fully
an~
whether
st~ndards
The
overloa~.
t~o
will nnt be
finally solved until consideratinn has been givpn to
an~
to what extel1t the needs
o~
usprs of financial state-
monts of smAll or clnse\y held businesses
from
prn~lpm
dif~er
significantly
needs of users of large, puhliC companies
an~
w~ether
the cnsts of i'l1plernenting scmp stAnAardp excped the bpnefitp
from thr:> in~orl1'Jation thpv producf>.13
The spf>cl~l COTTl'Tli-t;tep
8
acknnwledged that the FASB is now
spearheR~in~ an~
coor~inating
an effort to providp a 18nr--term solution, wltirh i,e:: ultirn8te l y
its responsiblltty.
The FASB iF recognized by the profession
an~
by o+hor con-
cernen groups as the bory havi'1§'" authority to iSAup bino i l1g
accounting st2ndards. 14 For reasons otltlinen in the di_Rcus~ion
paper, it; is not realistic to withdraw
reco~nition
of
or to tp,1{e any action that wOlll r jeoparoi7-e the FAS"R.
wClrk.
AltrouCh the special committep t001{
t~e
t~e
FASB
The spe-
P0Rj t i r m thRt t",p
cor:si(lpr acco!m+ing st8nnRrds wtoely perceiveo as unnecessarily
bu~densomp
ano costly.
eration by the FASB of several accounting stal1d8ros
FASB
St~terr0nt
no. 13,
~~~2~~!i~g_[2~_~~~~~~,
ments aYJ(i· iYJterpretat,jons;
f2I_!g~2~~_~~!~~,
the pro
for~a
R'1(1 its mp,ny amend-
(?) APB Opinion no. 11, ~~~2~Il1.2..Ilg
ann its amendments an~ interpreta~i0ns;
disclosures
!!.~~~_Q.2'.!l.Qi!!.~!:.i2g~; ara
of Intprest Cost. 15
----------------
identi~ipo
m~nd?ten
(3)
by APB Opinion no. 16, Busi-
(4) FASB StRtem"'nt no. 34, Q~£i1~li~§.1iQQ.
q
whatever rpasons do not need GAAP finRncial statements.
Cl18sion paper presents tentative
lines designed to increase the
choose to
discl08u~e
The di8-
and measurement guide-
among entities that
report on the inco~e tax basis of accounting. 16 Some
of the early letters of
co~siRtency
com~ent,
however, indicate confusion
among some respondents about the nature and intent of the tentative recommendations.
The special committee does not recommend that the income
tax basis of accounting supplant GAAP in any situation.
The
income tax basis is offered only as a potential alternative in
situations in which GAAP financial statements are not necessary.
A good example of such a situation is when a bank has a loan
that is adequately collateralized by the assets
and the guarantees of its owners
an~
o~
a business
the bank i8 interested in
obtaining only a general idea of how business operations are
progressing. 17 In such situations, bankers often are satisfied
'with income tax basis financial statements.
Ho~ever,
the option
to use such financial statements does not mean that bankers
will be required to accept non-GAAP
ness units.
state~pnts
from small busi-
A bank, as a condition of making a loan, has the
right to insist on GAAP financial statements at any time.
The idea of preparing financial statements on an income tax
basis is not new.
It was
fo~mally
recogni~ed
in 1976 by State-
.
St an d ar d s no. 1 4 ,_2~£l~~
S
. 1 __
R ~2£!_~.
t
13
men t on Au d 1· t lng
c18l
com~ittee's
closu~e
gui~ance
The s pe-
discussion pappr provides measurement ann disthat
woul~
make the use of income tax basis fi-
nancial stptements more acceptRble in situatinns in which
GAA~
1')
of reportinf
stan~ards
woul~
provi~e
a me8ns of relief from accounting
overload for some companies and
so~e
practitioners
because the income tax basis information must be developed in
any event.
Despite its lonr history, some questions still are unresolved relating to financial statement presentation
an~
dis-
closure in financial statements prepared on the income tay basis.
Also, some perceive that current reporting stAnda~ds for such
1g
statements are unduly negative.
The tentative guidan 0 e in
the discussion paner suggests answers to questions such as how
to handle nontaxable revenue ann nondeductible expense,
ho~
to
account for Internal Revenue Service adjustMents and what to dn
with accountinf changes
fo~
tax purposes.
In
an~ition,
sugges-
tions are made for minimum disclosures and for a less neg8tive
form of re1)Ort by accountants, includinp BurEt, review and COl'TJpilation reports.
The iBsues relating to accountin€,"
complex, controversial
an~
threateninp.
stan(ja~ds
overload
a~e
A consensus on a com-
prehensive progr8m to provine relief will be difficult to reach.
The tentative conclusions anil recommendations of the special
committee touch only the tip of the iceberg.
The ultimate re-
sponsibility for providing relief rests on a cooperative
ef~ort
by the FAS3 ann the AICPA.
I~!.!!.~!!.Y~!!_§:~£_~!£~£~£!~
In response to the mountinf concerns coming from m8ny sources,
the FASB alrea(jy has
ta~en
some important steps ann is continuing
11
stAndards overload.
As a result of FASB action, small and closely held
nesses hRve
ohtAi~ed
ment disclosure
bu~i-
some relief from certRin finAncial stpteIn 1978, the FASB suspen 2 ed
requi~ements.
requirements to disclose earninps per share
an~
t~e
segment infor-
mation fbr companies whose securities are not publicly tra~ed.?a
The FASB has officially
recogni~pd
quirod financial information may be
cial staterrents
an~
that certain types
o~
outside finan-
disclose~
is mAking progress in its project to dis-
tinguish between disclofmres thAt sholll_Cl be roquired for
enterprises
an~
disclosures
'· d ef:lgn8
.
t'd
cer t aln
e t ypes
0
t~at
e~fects
o~
f
·
?1
ent
,erprlses.
ch8n~inE
flexibility based on the
all
should be roquired for only
For example, only
very large enterprises must present the supplementary
tion on the
r o-
prices
relAtions~ip
require~
in~orma-
by FASB stAte-
between costs
an~
bene-
fits consi~erations that mny be helpful to smAll entities.??
The FASB hAS
estgblis~ed
a permanent advisory committee
to deC'll wi i;h ip-8\1eS relJlti ng to s'11A,11 bUR;nesses
titioners that serve
t~e~.
info~mation
p~a('-
6n finAncial r e -
portinf by private and small puhlic cl)mpanies.
m8ng~erS
the
More siEnifirant1y, the FASB ispued
an invitation to comment seekinp
asks
an~
That
of private and small puh1 i c companies,
docll~eY)t
use~s
o~
1::'
tnose companies' finr!nc18l st:8tements ann pun 1 1c acccnmtaYlts
prov1~tng
services to tnosp
to complete
com~?n1es
detaile~
ques-
tionnaires tailored to the respective groups of resrondents.?~
The ohjective of tne pro,jpc+, is to leRrn more A.bout the practices, eXDeriences
an~
views of tne
respon~ents
about the financial informAtion needs
an~
concerning f1-
practices of tne pri-
mRry users of the fin8nci8l statements of such companies.
overlnA~
is mRde considerablv worse by the tendency toward de-
tailed, cookbook-type stRndards designed to curb every possihle
abupp.24
The ohjective of standards shoul~ be to provide general
rules to guide acconnt,jnp; f0r transactions a'1<i eyents in accordance witn their
econo~ic
flexible enoug;, to
ad~'1it
substance.
Such stRndards
shoul~
be
considerably more judgment in t h e5r i"l1-
CPAs in puhl ic pr,8ctic e be8r a large share of the
. R" st8ndard s. ?5
f or the c ockbook a VproA ch to sett It'1
bl~me
In our so-
ciety, CPAs in purlic pr8ctice are primRrily respnnsihle fn r
provicHng aSSllrance that comp8nies c()mply with accollntinR' stanoards.
The
deman~
which to test
t~e
for detailed stand8rds stems from publ ir ac-
judgment of
mana~ement
the pressure abRtes for standards that
in the aoplicRtinn of
provi~p
detRiled tests
against which audit judgments CA.n be safely mRi1e.
1 '3
As thp
gets more
F~SB
more of the building blocks
an~
its conceptual framework in plAce, perhaps tho
p~essure
o~
fo~
de-
tai led standards will abate and the FASB will pull back from
the cookbook
a~proRch
to settinf
stan~ards
an~
go forward with
an afproAch that requires puhlic accountants once mnrp to exercise their professional judgment.
26
A factor that h8S made it difficult to maKe greAter progress
in
provj~ing
relief from
by GAAP hRS been the
burdens imposed on small companies
th~
held view that GA!P constitutes a
wi~ely
single body of rigid, in fleyi hIe an':'1 deta i led
measu~empnt
rn' f'P
that mupt be applied precisely alike by all enterprif'f's.
Evi~ence
of the flaw in that view can be
ferencps thAt nnw exist in the apnlication of
GAAP for
ci~cumstances.
GA~?
for business
te~priRPs
prises.
GAA~
differs from GAAP for
GAAP for nonprofit
of cost Or the
facts and
.
ever,
a~e
ci~cu~stances.
flexibility of
ef~orts
othe~
GA~P
to
dif~ers
for some en-
convent.ion.
?7
based on differences in the
underlyin~
They are cited here to poin+ un the
in deAling with those
ma~p
GA~~
fo~
enterprises requirps the upe
lower-o~-cost-o~-market
Such differences
GA~P
market value for investments in
o~
securities, whereas GAAP for
differs from
for investment com'1anjes
in significant dptail from GAAP for banks.
terprisPR requires the use
vA~ious
business ente r -
nnnreg\11atf'~
GA~P
in
the dif-
for regulatf'd business en-
organi~ations
profit-making enterprises.
GAA~
i~
organizations differs from
gove~nmental
en~erprises.
foun~
prog~ess
on
ctrcurnst~ncpp.
sj~plifying
How-
GAAD to SerVe the
neRds of smAll businf'ss is hAmst.rung by the old feAr, two spts of
GAA"p-one tnfprior to the other.
14
The special
com~ittee
and recommendations
an~
has issued its tentative conclusions
the FASB has issued its invitation to
comment on financial reporting by private
panies.
They address essentially the same
standards overload.
an~
small puhlic com-
problem~accounting
However, to resolve that problem they need
tre help of accounting practitioners ann the issuers, preparers
and
use~s
of financial statements who can speak from the per-
spective of small or closely held businesses.
28
The activities
of the special committee, the FASB ano others can be successful
only with the participation of all who use accounting standards.
15
FOOTNOTF.S
1W. T. Baxter, "Accoun+,ing Standards-Bonn or Curse,"
~££2.~!!!i!!g_::!!!'9._~~~i!!~~!2._~~~~~££!! , XI I (Wi n t e r, 1 q81 ), p. 4.
2w. C. Norby, "Accounting for the Effects of Regulation,"
~i!!~!!£!.~1_!~2~1;Y~i2_~2.~:!:!!~1, XXXVIII (May-June, 1982), p. 21.
3ThoTTl;~s P. Kel1 e y, "Accountlng Stand8ros Overl08d-Time
for Actton?" ~!!::_£~!_~2.~!.!!~1.
LII (May, 1 08?), p. 10.
4Gerald W. He1'D and ThomAs W. McRae, "Accounttnp." Standards
0eVerl0an: )Reltef is Neened," !l.2.~!.!!21_2.f._~££2.!!!!!§:!!£;Y' CIIIII
May, 1082 , p. 53.
1'. 10.
5"News Report," ~2.~I!!::l_2.!_!£££~!!!~!2£;Y, (January, 1 08?),
6W. T. Baxter, p. 5.
7W. O. Brac 1mey ano H. R. Andersc)TI, "Regulation of Cost
Accounting: The Answer or the Abyss?" Management Accounting,
LXIII (October, 19B1), p. 25.
---- ---------------8
IINews RepoY't," ~2.!!:!:!!z.l_2.f.~~££2.~!!1~!!.£;y, (January, 19B?),
p. 10.
9Brackney ann Anderson, p. 27.
10
Hepp and McRae, p. 54.
11Ibid, p. 54.
p. 3.
p. 8.
12"Late Developments," ~2.~!.!!2.1_2.r_!££2.~!!.!.:'!!£;Y'
(January, 1Q8?),
13"News Report," ~Q~!.!!::l_2.!_!££2.~!!!:'!!£Y' (MaY'ch, 1 G B?),
14.John J. Wi 111np:ham an~ D. R. Ca r mich8el, !~:!i!!.!!g QQ!!.:~£!2
(New York-: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1979T, p. 8.
~!!.1_~~1h.Q.Q§. 3ro. en.
1t;
~Thomas
16
p. 26.
P. Kelley, p. 10.
"Nev-'s RepoY't," !l.2.~:!:!!~1_2.f._~:::£2.~!!.!2!!£;Y, (December, 1 08?) ,
17 F . Milne ann R. Weber, "Regulattnn ann thp Aunit.ing T'"!"ofession in the U.S.A.: The Metcalf Suhcom~i~tee'R Recom~end(a t i ()TIS Re E~xarn) i ned," ~££2.~!!!i!!.g_~!!i_~~2i!!.~::'~_~~~~:2.:!:£!2, XI
Summer, 1q·81 , p. 10':),
16
18
Thomas P. Kellev, p. 16.
19"News Report," ~2.!!rg~l_2.f_~~s:.2.~g~~!:!.~y, (DecPlTlbe.,.., 1Q8?),
p. 26.
20R. A. Morg!=ln, "Regulation, DeregulRtion, or Self Regulation,"
(October, 1°81), p. 54.
~!g~g~~~g!_A~£Q~rr!igs, LXIII
?1W. T. BRxter, p. 8.
22 Hepn an~ McRae, p. 60.
?4 Hepp and McRae, p. 60.
?5 Ibid , p. 60.
26 Ibid , p. 60.
27'1'1. T. Baxte"", p. g.
28 Hepp ann McRae,
p. 62.
17
BIBIJIOGRAPHY
B3xter, W.
~r.
"Accounting Stp.nflp.rfle-Boon or Curse," Accountinp"
XII (Winter, 1 0 31), -p-p. 3=:;-0:-------
§:!!£_~!!!2i!!~§.~_B:~~~~?:£b..
Brackney, Will iam O. 3nfl Henry R. And r>rson.
"Regu 1 At; i rm of Co st
Accol1ntinp::
The AnS'''8r or the Abyss?" ManAgement Accountinp'.
LXIII (Ociober, 1981), -pp. 24-31.
--------------------He-pp, Geral 1 W. ano Thomas W. McRae.
"ACCOllTIting StAnflards
Ovprload: Relipf is Needer'l,lI ~2.:!!:!!:::l_2.!_~££2.~~!~~£y.
CLIII (May, 198?), -pp; 52-62.
.
l
Kelley, Tho'Tl3s P.
"Accounting St8nr'la r ds Overload-Ti"1e for
Action?" T.b.~_Qr~_~2.!!!.!!~1.. IJII (Mav, 1Q8?),. -pT). 10-17.
"Late Developmpnts," ~2.!!~!!~l_2.!_!'2.£2.'2.!!!=_!!.£Y..
-p. 3.
(January, 1 98?) ,
Mil n e F. an 0 R. Web e r •. " Reg \11 a 1; ion and t h p Au r'l t t t n g PI' 0 f e s R t rm
in the U.S.A.:
Th8 Metcalf Subcommittee's Recommen~attnnq
Re eX3) rn l TIe r'l ," ~£~2.~!!!.i!2g_~!l~_~!!§.i!!~§.!:._!3:~~~::.!:£b..
XI (SumYl1er ,
1981 , -pp. 197-205.
Morgan, Rotert A.
"Regulation, Deregulation, or Self RegulAtion,"
LXIII (Octoher, 1 Q81), pp. 54-5 r5.
~§:2§:g~.!!!~!!!_!££2.~!l!i!!g.
"News Fe3ture," ~Q~!:!!::.l_2.!_~££2.!!!l!~!l£y..
(June, 1 Q8?), p. ~1.
"News Re-port," ~2.~!.!!.~l_2.!_A££2.!!!!:!~!l£y..
(,Tanuary, 198?), p-p. 10-1?
"News RepoT·t," ~Q!!!.!l~2-_2.!_~£:2.~!l!~!!£Y..
(March, 1 98?), p-p. 7-8.
"News Report," ~2.~!.!!~2._2.r_~££Q)2.!!.!§:!!£y..
(Septemhe r
"News RepoT't," ~Q~E.!!tl_2.!_~££2.~!!!~!!£y..
(December, 1 0 8?), p. 26.
Norby, W. C.
,
1Q8?), p-p. 24-26.
"Acco\Jnting foY' the Effects nf Begu18ti /"In."
XXXVIII (May-June, 1 qS?) ,
ri!!.~!l~:i~1_~!!.~1y.~i~_~2.~r:.!l::.1.
P1l. 2 1 - 2? •
Willingham. John J. Rnd D. R. Carmichael.
~!!~~!12&_Q2!l£~E!~
§:!l~_"!i!~!!2.2.i~.
New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1 Q7Q.