Abstract The article by professor Sidney I. Simon entitled "The Right Side of Accumulated Depreciation" stimulated the interest of accounting theorist. The author, a Canadian accountant, subscribes to the doctrine enunciated by Bulletin No. 9 of the Committee on Accounting and Auditing Research of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants in 1953 which states that the term "reserve" is inappropriate as a description of accumulated depreciation and that this use of the term "reserve" has led to misunderstanding of financial statements. Simon, in the article cited, states that the arguments of some protagonists of the asset-deduction approach, which he opposes, are "quite negative in nature." Then he adopts a double negative approach by devoting a large part of his article to combating negative-type arguments. This author will attempt to eschew all negative reasoning and to advance positive reasons to support the viewpoint he adopts. Simon argues that many readers of balance sheets are given "the false impression that the net asset figure represents its value.

Abstract The author comments on the article "Accounting and Reporting Standards for Corporate Financial Statements-1957 Revision," by George J. Staubus in the January 1958 issue of the periodical "The Accounting Review." The article states that "Distinguishing between monetary assets and non-monetary assets paves the way for several possible desirable developments in accounting practice." But, no hint is given of the nature of these developments which are so possible and so desirable. Mr. Staubus seemed to go to considerable length in praising the committee for absurdities of which it might fairly plead innocent. With regard to "equities," the committee shows a remarkable unwillingness to use plain words and Mr. Staubus plunges even deeper into the twilight of involved and obscure wordiness. Both seem loath to admit that the liabilities of an enterprise are merely the debts that a court will, at need, enforce against the enterprise. A major weakness of the committee report is that it virtually ignores the legal framework. The committee has accomplished miracles of round-about generalization in avoiding the fundamental admission that one major purpose of accounting is the rendering of a report of stewardship by managers to owners. Mr. Staubus rightly criticizes the committee for its indirect approach to the problem of defining the audience to which accounting reports are addressed.