Haskins & Sells Bulletin, Vol. 13 (1930);

              ATLANTA
BALTIMORE
BIRMINGHAM
BOSTON
BUFFALO
CHARLOTTE
CHATTANOOGA
CHICAGO
CINCINNATI
CLEVELAND
DALLAS
DENVER
DETROIT
JACKSONVILLE
KANSAS CITY
LOS ANGELES
MINNEAPOLIS
NEWARK
NEW ORLEANS
NEW YORK
PHILADELPHIA
HASKINS & S E L LS
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
BULLETIN EXECUTIVE OFFICES
15 BROAD STREET, NEW YORK
PITTSBURGH
PORTLAND
PROVIDENCE
SAINT LOUIS
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SEATTLE
TULSA
WATERTOWN
BERLIN
LONDON
MANILA
PARIS
SHANGHAI
HAVANA
MEXICO CITY
MONTREAL
VOL. XIII NEW YORK, JANUARY, 1930 No. 1
Two Sides
T H E formulation of principles for the
guidance of rational accounting is at­tended
with difficulties because of the
axiom that there are two sides to every
question.
No subject better illustrates this diffi­culty
than the subject of appreciation.
The problem which it presents is one of the
most troublesome extant.
For taxing purposes, the United States
government does not recognize apprecia­tion
as income until the increase in value
has been realized.
For taxing purposes, Great Britain does
not recognize appreciation as income even
when realized, holding that realization is
but the conversion of a capital asset from
one form to another.
For valuation purposes, the Interstate
Commerce Commission uses investment
cost as a basis, arguing that it is capital
invested which must be maintained intact.
For valuation purposes, the United
States Supreme Court has tended to sup­port
replacement cost, influenced, appar­ently,
by the thought that the conditions
surrounding eminent domain govern the
question, and that it is property, not the
cost of the property, of which the invol­untary
grantor is deprived.
For depreciation purposes, one school of
thought insists that depreciation on appre­ciation
is chargeable to operations, inas­much
as the replacement cost of the prop­erty
units must be recovered.
For depreciation purposes another school
of thought holds that the charge for depre­ciation
on appreciation should be offset by
a credit from unrealized appreciation, thus
nullifying the effect on operations.
For borrowing purposes, the tendency is
to concede replacement cost as a basis of
value from which to determine the amount
which the property will justify.
For statement purposes, that is, with re­spect
to profit and loss, the tendency is to
say, "Before depreciation and taxes," par­ticularly
where the earning power relates
to bonds.
Before a satisfactory answer is found to
the highly controversial question of how
to treat appreciation in accounts, it is likely
that appreciation will have to be more
carefully defined than at present.
It is not unlikely that appreciation will
be attributed to increased productivity of
capital, not to value in exchange, and not
to a rising price level.
If the first premise is found to be true,
apparently there will be no inconsistency
in charging depreciation on appreciation
to operations.