R ECENTLY we have made two important changes in the Index of General Business Conditions. These include: a revision, involving a change of one of the constituents, in Curve B; and a revision, involving a modification of the secular trend and standard unit for each constituent, in Curve A.1 Both of these changes have been occasioned by the extraordinarily vigorous, remarkably sustained and widely prevalent public participation in stock speculation. The change in Curve B, which is discussed first below, comprises merely a refinement, in the bank debits data, intended to eliminate from the curve some of the confusing effects of the speculative outburst. The change in the Curve A is much more radical; and, since it may cause difference of opinion, we shall seek to explain in considerable detail the justification and implications of our substitution of the new results for those heretofore used.

Abstract Every Federal income and profits tax act discriminates between various classes of taxpayers. The sixteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution enacted in 1913 imposed a tax of one per cent upon the net income of corporations. Thus, at the very outset, taxpayers were faced with a discrimination, and in all probability many of them took occasion to adjust their financial organizations to meet the discrimination. The U.S. Congress must have foreseen this, for the Act contained a provision imposing an additional tax upon the individual's pro rata share of corporate income which was accumulated beyond reasonable needs of the business for the purpose of preventing the additional tax upon its stockholders. Accordingly, the penalty of Section 220 under this law is imposed upon any corporation which is formed or availed of for the purpose of preventing imposition of surtaxes upon its stockholders. The penalty is fifty per cent of its net income plus dividends, which is a very severe penalty. The article discusses the impact of this penalty for corporations and stockholders in detail.

Abstract The article focuses on the problem of curriculum construction, which has been constantly with the education system in the U.S. ever since educators many years ago felt the necessity of formulating a definite program. The problem is pressing and stupendous right now because of certain changes in the industrial and social fabric. After close contact with a score or more of the leaders in commercial work both in the secondary and in the college divisions, one approaches the intricate subject with due humility. Certain factors well known to all have created a situation calling for new diagnosis. Among the more evident changes are, industrial progress; progress in distribution whereby place utilities are created; the perfecting of distinct functions such as financing, purchasing, storing, personnel; changes In social life; great increase in school enrollments; changes in the philosophy and doctrines of education and in their application. In the development of curricula over a period of time, subjects do not maintain a stable position but shift up or down. As these courses have moved downward, they either remained unchanged in scope of content or expanded.

Reviews the book "An Interpretation of Accounts," by Thomas Alliboke Budd and Edward Needles Wright.

Abstract Many teachers of accounting feel that the present methods of instruction in their field leave much to be desired. Apparently, the necessity of keeping the content of the curriculum up with the rapid expansion of accounting theory and practice has resulted in less attention to the more purely pedagogic aspects of accepted fundamentals than is desirable. The well-nigh universal acceptance of some variation of the balance sheet approach was an inevitable step in the right direction. Insofar as it gets away from the older apprentice methods of doing without understanding and emphasizes methods of logical presentation it is pedagogically sound. But insofar as it leads toward new methods of understanding without doing it is pedagogically fallacious. It is the author's observation that very few accounting students retain the gist of lecture, reading, or discussion unless the subject matter thereof is also embraced in concrete problems worked by the student. Even careful illustrations in the lecture or reading are apparently of little avail unless immediately backed up by concrete problems worked by the student.

Abstract In connection with the accounting terms, assets, liabilities, and net worth, a word of caution is necessary. By definition, it is obvious that in any case the total asset minus the total liabilities is equal to the net worth. As a result of this method of portrayal, the balance sheet has often been completely misunderstood and the layman frequently asks why it is that assets and liabilities are always of equal amount. To explain, the accountant has upon occasion gone so far as to personalize the business as distinct from its owner, and the net worth is referred to as a liability of the business to its owner. This, of course, only leads to confusion and various attempts have been made to explain the situation more clearly. Thus it has been advocated that the term liabilities be abandoned and that there be substituted therefore the term equities. Under this plan all obligations of a business to creditors and others are termed equities and the net worth of the business is termed the equity of the proprietor.

Abstract The article focuses on the proceedings of the twelfth annual convention of the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, held at Washington D.C., between December 28 and 29, 1927. After some introductory remarks by the organizers, papers were read by W. W. Nissley of the American Institute of Accountants, John R. Wildman of the company Haskins and Sells, David Himmelblau of Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, William A. Paton of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and J. L. Dohr of Greene and Hurd and of Columbia University, New York, New York. The second program meeting was given over to a discussion of various features of the federal income tax law. Johns Hopkins University's, Baltimore, Maryland, professor presided at the session and opened it with a brief statement introducing the speakers of the afternoon, all of whom were representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The third program session consisted of a joint meeting with the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business. The general topic for discussion was "The Place of Accounting in Commerce Curriculum."