Abstract One hundred years ago the Parliament of the Great Britain enacted the Companies Act of 1862. This Act was to be, for nearly half a century, the main statute for the regulation of British companies; and in the Act's provisions, or in what was lacking in those provisions, the strong individualism and laissez-faire spirit of latter 19th century Great Britain were manifest. For the Act contained no mandatory provisions with respect to accounts or audit: these were matters of private contract, to be left to the stockholders. Major reforms related to company Act took place in Great Britain. In the year 1962, Jenkins Report was presented. Much of the Report is concerned with the general law. Generally, the accounting recommendations of this Report can be regarded as an attempt to add marginal improvements to existing legislation, rather than as a plan of radical change. Many of the improvements will be valuable. The general impression that the Report gives is of a Committee that, as a whole, possessed a high technical competence in law and accounting, but a substantially lower one in economic policy.

Abstract This article focuses on the U.S. federal income tax provision of loss carry forward. The operating loss carry-forward is a provision for the off-setting of a prior-year loss against current profits. This provision has created the accounting problem of how the tax reduction arising from the carry-forward should be treated on financial statements and, more particularly, on the profit and loss statement. The problem concerns the investor, the creditor, and the other readers of financial statements of companies utilizing the carry-forward. The importance of the loss carry-forward provision to a company is, of course, that it preserves valuable cash which otherwise would have to be paid out in taxes. Such funds are retained in the business and can be used for working capital and/or expansion of fixed or other non-current assets. A company which has alternate profit and loss years of about the same dimension would pay no tax at all. Consequently, this study is directed toward eliminating such confusion by finding the best method of treating the tax reduction arising from the carry-forward.

Abstract The analysis in this article applies in general to the investment credit. This tax measure was introduced even more emphatically than the guidelines to stimulate investment. Accounting requirements, which would reduce the attractiveness or the apparent attractiveness of the credit, would run counter to public policy. Companies will get the investment credit if they qualify; it is not a matter of choice; in this respect the credit differs from the guidelines. From the point of view of the public interest, a part of the problem is whether one or another method of reporting would be more effective in demonstrating to management the benefits from the credit. If the tax savings had to be set off in tax deferral accounts the near-money gains of the investment credit might seem smaller and the stimulus to investment somewhat reduced. The tax advantage for a profitable railroad comes when the qualifying investment is made. Of course, complications will arise in some cases. There are contingencies, which can lead to the loss of some of the credit received on investments in prior years. And there will be carryovers of unused credits. The effect of a credit received in one year on the tax-worth of depreciation deductions in the future will present difficult, often insuperable, valuation problems.

Reviews the book "A Tentative Set of Broad Accounting Principles for Business Enterprises," by Robert T. Sprouse and Maurice Moonitz.

Abstract The article focuses on the differences between commercial and institutional accounting. Increasing importance of the role of higher education in the economy have provided a challenge to all members of the accounting profession. Much of the theoretical knowledge relative to commercial accounting practice must be reassessed when accounting for institutions of higher education. There is truly a separate and distinct set of generally accepted accounting principles for colleges and universities. At the same time, it is interesting to conjecture that as more emphasis is placed on the idea of dollar's worth for each dollar spent by colleges and universities, and with such measurement devices as performance budgeting, these non-profit organizations may be moving toward profit and loss applications. Meanwhile, as large business enterprises become more service oriented, they appear to be assuming trusteeship aspects similar to those in institutional accounting. Just as it may be true that institutional accounting can benefit from commercial accounting, the reverse is equally likely.

Abstract This article focuses on the role of certified public accountants (CPA) in management services. Demands on businesses have multiplied over the years as a result of the changing nature of competitive markets, rapid developments in technology of production equipment, availability and increased use of high-speed computers, expansion of knowledge in almost every field of learning, and a constant increase in the number, variety, and complexity of laws affecting business operations. Yet, in spite of all the encouragement given by professional organizations, the cries of business managers for more help and the cold statistics on the volume and lucrative rewards of the consulting business, many CPA have apparently not entered this field nor are they relatively frequently called upon by firms seeking consulting services. Some CPA firms are very active in rendering management services, but the number of firms who are is quite small. Further- more, revenue received by a CPA for management services is a very small portion of the total annual fees of $550 million paid by businesses for consulting work, as well as a small percentage of the total revenues realized by a CPA.

Reviews the book "Cost Accounting Principles and Managerial Applications," by Gerald R. Crowningshield.