Doctoral research [1983, Vol. 10, no. 2]

              The Accounting Historians Journal Vol. 10, No. 2 Fall 1983
DOCTORAL RESEARCH
Maureen H. Berry, Editor UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
All of the studies reviewed in this edition have to do, in one way or another, with impact assessments: the majority of them involving accounting regulation. We commence with the broad regulation of accounting practices by the federal government through specific legislation. Chow's study of the impact of accounting regulation on investor wealth, although pointed towards the need for assessing the economic effects of accounting regulation, uses the 1933 and 1934 Securities Acts in testing his hypotheses. Johnson shifts the focus to management stewardship as he gathers data on specific accounting changes which firms introduced in response to the re-quirements of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.
The Treasury Department also plays a significant role in shaping accounting practice. Professional accountants and tax authorities have been battling over code language and application interpreta-tions for decades, yet ambiguities and incongruencies persist. Lett provides strategic advice to both the Internal Revenue Service and taxpayers, based on his study of court decisions which distinguish tax-deductible business losses from nondeductible, unprofitable hobbies. Aharoni raises behavioral issues in his examination of the ways in which corporate taxation affects management's choices between accounting alternatives. Beirne is concerned about other aspects of corporate tax policy: notably its neutrality and provisions for equality of treatment. These policy attributes are questioned in his review of the taxation of the undistributed income of controlled foreign corporations.
Turning to the profession's own internal regulatory activities, the remaining four dissertations ask basic questions about required practices and obtain mixed results. Haselkorn evaluates pension expense accounting, as required by Opinion No. 8 of the Account-ing Principles Board (APB) and concludes that it does not accom-plish the Board's stated objectives. Gean questions the APB's posi-tion on the interperiod allocation of depreciation timing differences,