Abstract Debate on the question of correlation between taxable income and financial income has run "hot and heavy" for many years. Most individual accountants writing on this question argue that greater harmony, if not complete agreement, should exist between the two. The American Accounting Association (AAA) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) did not take official positions on the issue until some two decades ago. At that time, however, they agreed with the majority view. Most of these individuals and organizations emphasized that taxation principles should be brought more closely in harmony with generally accepted accounting principles, rather than the reverse. The method of accomplishing this objective was also dearly indicated. Instead of incorporating accounting principles and applications into statutes to make "book income" and "taxable income" identical products of legislative fiat, their recommendations have stressed that accounting concepts incorporated into statutes defining taxable income should be based on parallel accounting principles developed in the market place. In a word, accountants feel they should influence congressional action on tax matters, but that governmental agencies should not prescribe generally accepted accounting principles. The purpose of this writing has not been to convince the reader that all of the objectives sought by accountants with regard to taxation provisions are wrong. Rather, the object has been to convince the reader that in their present official posture the AICPA and the AAA are not Ekely to reach these objectives without serious consequences to the profession.

Abstract This article focuses on fairness as an essential element in the development of accounting theory. There was very little additional discussion in the literature of fairness as an essential in accounting theory development until 1960. If fairness is to be of usefulness in accounting, therefore, accountants must shake the word loose from its other meanings, or at least educate the users of financial statements as to its precise meaning when used in conjunction with them. This would be a most difficult task for at least two reasons, (1) accountants would have first to agree upon a precise meaning and (2) the users would have to be convinced that they ought to accept the established meaning with regard to financial presentations. It is the usefulness of the concept as a basis for accounting thought that is being challenged, not the importance of the concept itself. Opinions do vary considerably, and the more complex a subject becomes the more likely that a vague notion about the meaning of a word, however slight, is likely to manifest itself in ambiguity.

Abstract The principal differences among the bewildering number of concepts of income that may be conceived can be narrowed down to three major issues. These are the real versus the money measure, inclusion versus exclusion of capital gains, and accrual versus realization as the criterion for timing of a gain or loss. If decisions were reached on these three major issues, almost every one of the many controversial points concerning the measurement of income could be settled. And the concept broadened perceptibly up to the present time. It now is identical with the concept "special items" and includes gains and losses presently termed unexpected, unearned, non-recurring, extraordinary, minor or ancillary, non-controllable, as well as those resulting from prior period adjustments or corrections, or are related to capital, as opposed to circulating, assets. Such items, under present generally accepted accounting principles, are supposedly closed directly to retained earnings or reported in a separate section of the income statement, depending upon the materiality of the item in question.

Abstract The article determines the relationship between recognition of revenue and measurement of revenue. It has been stated that in accounting for revenue, the two central questions are the timing of revenue recognition and the determination of amount. This statement apparently implies that revenue will never be recognized before the amount can be determined but, under certain conditions, revenue will not be recognized even when the amounts can be accurately determined. The recording procedure is followed normally, not because there is difficulty in measuring revenue accurately but because it is often not possible to accurately estimate the expenses to be incurred from date of contract until final collection is made. Thus, revenue realization is made dependent upon income realization. The statement since it indicate that the goal of accounting is to reflect accurately entity economic activity as it takes place, in order to best serve the needs of statement users, might be interpreted as suggesting that the recognition of revenue should be considered a function of measurement, rather than a central question in accounting for revenue.

Abstract Reviews the book "Objectives of Financial Statements: Selected Papers," vol. 2, edited by Joe D. Cramer and George H. Sorter.

Reviews the book "Analysis for Expansion or Contraction of a Business."