Reviews the book "Dynamic Accounting," by Eugen Schmalenbach.

Reviews the book "Accounting for the Cost of Pension Plans: Accounting Research Study No. 8," by Ernest L. Hicks.

Reviews the book "On the Accuracy of Economic Observations," 2nd ed., by Oskar Morgenstern.

Reviews the book "Corporate Debt Capacity," by Gordon Donaldson.

Reviews the book "The Individual Income Tax," by Richard Goode.

Accountant and economist are a sensible combination on matters of income determination, as Professors Robert L. Dickens and John O. Blackburn demonstrated, that their several-pronged analysis demolishes the case for replacement cost as an ingredient in accounting net income is, however, deserving of a demurrer. This present article is a criticism of their criticism, the purpose being to return the argument to what the economists regard as its proper grounds. The criticisms embrace three areas, methodology, economic theory, and accounting theory. The methodological criticisms are, of course, general and independent of the subject matter treated. The criticisms on economic theory refer primarily to economic concepts which underlie many of the questions discussed by Dickens and Blackburn and are, of course, specific to economic theory and its applications. The criticisms on accounting theory are principally concerned with the charges, both express and implied, by Dickens and Blackburn that the use of replacement cost is incompatible with the informational needs of stockholders, and significantly less conventional than the use of conventional accounting, thus being an invitation to easy manipulation of accounting data by managers.

This article focuses on the 1964 Concepts and Standards Research Study Committee of the American Accounting Association, which aimed to expand and to amend in part the statement on realization in "Accounting and Reporting Standards for Corporate Financial Statements--1957 Revision." That statement says the essential meaning of realization is that a change in an asset or liability has become sufficiently definite and objective to warrant recognition in the accounts. In considering this statement, and realization principles generally, attention will be focused on the problems of asset recognition and valuation and revenue recognition. The committee concurs with the statement of the 1957 Revision that primary emphasis should be given to the use by investors of published financial statements in making investment decisions and in exercising control over management. The committee recognizes the difficulty of developing a definition of realization that will have general applicability. Nevertheless, four of the committee members feel there is sufficient significance in the difference between realized and unrealized changes in value to justify making the distinction.