Family Endowment Reconsidered Get access W. B. Reddaway W. B. Reddaway Cambridge Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 5, Issue 2, February 1938, Pages 123–131, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967526 Published: 01 February 1938

Preface Get access William Leonard Crum William Leonard Crum Cambridge, Mass. March, 1938 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 52, Issue Supplement, May 1938, Pages 5–7, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/52.Supplement.5 Published: 01 May 1938

Journal Article The Economic Theories of John Craig, a Forgotten English Economist Get access Thor W. Bruce Thor W. Bruce St. Louis University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 52, Issue 4, August 1938, Pages 697–707, https://doi.org/10.2307/1885040 Published: 01 August 1938

I. The Distribution of Income, 121.— II. Statistical Evidence on the Relation between Income and Expenditure: the Brookings study, 123; Lough's study, 124; Zimmerman's findings, 125; the Consumer Purchase data for Chicago, Denver and Providence, 125; for villages in New England and the Middle West, 129; for small cities, 129; for farm operators, 134.— Data for occupational groups, 134.— Kaplan's analysis, 134.— Definition of savings, 135.— Inferences concerning Mr. Keynes' psychological law, 135.— III. The Psychological Basis, 138.— Conclusion, 140.

François Simiand's Theory of Economic Progress Robert Marjolin Robert Marjolin Paris Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 5, Issue 3, June 1938, Pages 159–171, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967444 Published: 01 June 1938

Abstract It would seem appropriate that Some Tentative Propositions Underlying Consolidated Reports presented at the last annual meeting of the American Accounting Association, be expanded to include the more complete discussion of the reasoning followed in arriving at the conclusions it contains. The treatment in consolidation of earned surplus of subsidiaries arising prior to date of acquisition of control. The accrual of equities in undistributed earnings of subsidiaries in accounts of the parent. The determination of reserves for losses on investments in subsidiaries based on ultimate realization rather than on amounts of operating losses. The exclusion from consolidation of nonhomogeneous subsidiaries. It is submitted that these propositions are neither in accordance with generally accepted practice nor based on any logical assumptions. In effect they state that the parent's equity in earnings of a subsidiary during the period when an interest was owned less than controlling may constitute earned surplus to the parent only if received prior to acquisition of control but not if received after acquisition of control.

Abstract The article focuses on the effect of direct charges to surplus on the measurement of income. One of the principal functions of accounting is to measure income. It is widely recognized by those who have thought on the problem that the determination of the income of a corporation in a particular year is in part an expression of judgment or rather the result of a series of judgments on varied and often complex problems. The accuracy with which income is measured is determined by the quality of judgment and the nature of the accounting principles applied in the solution of these problems. Five areas are of primary importance in income determination. These are inventory valuation, depreciation, certain features of consolidation and inter-corporate relations, the policy in writing off expenses and asset revaluations to surplus, and the handling of investment portfolios. These vary in importance depending on the circumstances of particular corporations. Frequently other factors assume major importance, such as the determination of reserve for bad debts.

Reviews the book "Federal Tax Practice," by Robert H. Montgomery.

Abstract On May 28, 1938 in the case of State Street Trust Co. v. Ernst, (15 N.E. (2d) 416), the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed the major principles of the Ultramares case. In an action against the accountants by third parties not contracting with the accountants (the plaintiff bank made a loan on the basis of the certified statement), the court held that the question of liability could go to the jury on an issue of fraud as to whether the accountants had a bonafide belief in the truthfulness of their certificate. The Ultramares case precluded liability of accountants to third parties on grounds of negligence, but it declared that there could be liability if a jury could find a reckless misstatement, or an opinion based on grounds so flimsy as to lead to the conclusion that there was no genuine belief in its truthfulness. That is, gross negligence could establish liability when mere negligence would not. The nature of the action would be in fraud, and the flimsy grounds stated above would take the place of actual intent to deceive. The right to sue would extend to all who relied on the certificate and whom the accountants might reasonably expect would be making such reliance.