Accounting Error or Change in Estimate?

On November 21, 2011, independent research firm, Gradient Analytics issued a report that questioned whether j2 Global appropriately treated the measurement of annual contacts with eFax customers as a change in estimate. Based on its examination of the j2 Global’s financial disclosures, applicable accounting rules, and limited feedback from the company, Gradient reported that “…the description of the underlying circumstances sounds more like a correction of an error in prior-period financial results.” If those adjustments are appropriately considered an accounting error rather than a change in estimate, a restatement of j2 Global’s 2010 financial reports may be warranted if such errors are considered material under accounting rules.

Questions:

1. In your own words, briefly explain the difference between the treatment of an accounting error and a change in estimate and why it is important for this company.
2. Who is Sam E. Antar, the author of this blog, and why should an accountant recognize him?
3. Look at other articles in Mr. Antar’s blog and briefly summarize one that interests you.

Sources:

Antar, Sam (2011). Should j2 Global Communications Restate its 2010 Financial Reports?, November 22. (Retrievable online at http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com/2011/11/should-j2-global-communications-restate.html)

Michalowisc, M. (2011) Video: Biggest Accounting Mistake #2. (Retrievable online at http://www.toiletpaperentrepreneur.com/videos?tubepress_page=3)

Biggest Accounting Mistake #2 from Obsidian on Vimeo.

Groupon in the News

Groupon disclosed a major accounting change on Friday, essentially halving its once-jaw-dropping revenue after it encountered resistance from regulators with its filing to go public. Groupon, the online coupon titan, announced separately that its chief operating officer of about five months, Margo Georgiadis, resigned and will return to her former employer, Google, as president of the Americas.

Questions:

1. What was the accounting change mentioned? Was it a violation of GAAP?

2. What effect did it have on the financial statements?

3. What is the SEC quiet period mentioned in the article, how long is it, and what is its purpose?

Source: De La Merced, M.J. and E.M. Rusli (2011). Accounting Change Cuts Groupon’s Revenue. The New York Times – DealBook, September 23 (Retrievable online at http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/groupon-changes-its-revenue-accounting/)

Tax Breaks Galore in Video Games

The United States government offers tax incentives to companies pursuing medical breakthroughs, urban redevelopment and alternatives to fossil fuels, but also to video game producers. They are able to combine tax breaks across software development, the entertainment industry, and online retailing for a bonanza effect.

Electronic Arts, founded in 1982, has since become one of the world’s dominant video game companies, producing popular titles like SimCity, FIFA soccer, Harry Potter, and Madden NFL, largely due to huge tax incentives.

Questions:

1. Discuss why you think that Union Carbide failed to meet the experimental threshold for the R & D credit, though video game makers often seem to have little trouble meeting the requirement.

2. What was the most interesting point made in this article that pertains to you as an accountant? Do you agree or disagree with the tax incentives that the video game industry has been able to capitalize on? Discuss.

3. Do you agree or disagree with video game industry officials that say by improving technology, they are indirectly helping society at large? Why or why not?

Source: Kocieniewski, D. (2011). Rich Tax Breaks Bolster Makers of Video Games, The New York Times, Sep. 10 (Retrievable online at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/technology/rich-tax-breaks-bolster-video-game-makers.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2)

What good is a logo?

Australia, which has already banned the public display of tobacco products in retail outlets, wants to outlaw logos on cigarette packs and force them to be sold in plain dark-olive packaging, carrying health warnings instead of company logos. Cigarette brand names will appear on the packages in the same size and style of printing. The legislation, if passed by Parliament, would come into force in 2012.

“The forced removal of trade marks and other valuable intellectual property is a clear violation of the terms of the bilateral investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong,” Anne Edwards, a spokeswoman for Philip Morris Asia, said in the statement. “We believe we have a very strong legal case and will be seeking significant financial compensation for the damage to our business.”

Questions:

1. How are trademarks valued?

2. Where do trademarks appear on the financial statements? Where will costs regarding this litigation be reported in the financial statements of Philip Morris?

3. Do you agree or disagree with Australia’s approach? Discuss.

Source:

Bloomberg News Staff. (2011). Philip Morris Sues Australia Over Cigarette Packaging. The New York Times, June 26 (Retrievable online at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/business/27tobacco.html?ref=business)

Cooking the Books for Lehman?

N.Y. Attorney General Cuomo filed charges against Ernst & Young on December 21, 2010, alleging that the firm helped Wall Street Investment bank Lehman Brothers conceal its deteriorating financial condition before the bank’s historic collapse in the fall of 2008.  The civil lawsuit, which seeks more than $150 million, is the first law enforcement action to stem from Lehman’s failure. The bankruptcy of the firm, which was an important cog in the machinery of the capital markets, caused immense collateral damage. The allegations center on sham trades that allowed Lehman to window-dress its balance sheet before filing quarterly financial reports, making it seem like it had more cash than it actually did. Cuomo’s lawsuit aims to hold accountable one of the less-mentioned players in the saga – Ernst & Young, Lehman’s auditor, which allegedly turned a blind eye to the accounting machinations. The case does not resolve the fate of senior Lehman executives, such as former chief executive Richard Fuld, who have been under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Questions:

1.  Explain the boomerang trade referred to as “Repo 105″ that is at the heart of the allegations.

2.  Explain leverage and what impact it played in the scenario.

3. Based on what you know about the Lehman situation, do you think they should have been included in the government bailout?  Why or why not?

4.  Read Matthew Lee’s letter  and critique it. Do you agree with the way he handled the situation as a whistleblower?  Based on what you know, would you have handled it any differently? 

Source:

Goldfarb, Zachary A. (2010). N.Y. Attorney General Cuomo Sues Ernst and Young, alleging Lehman Accounting Fraud, The Washington Post, December 22 (Retrievable online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122103973.html?sid=ST2010122106931)

Lee, Matthew. (2010). The Lehman Whistleblower Letter Everyone Ignored. Hereisthecity.com, December 21, 2010 (Retrievable online at http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/business_news/10215.cntns)  

The Alyona Show,  The Next Arthur Andersen?, Dec. 22, 2010. (Retrievable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B_esTl9FS8&feature=related) 

New rules for Debt-Relief Services

Starting this week, for-profit companies marketing debt-relief services over the telephone are prohibited from charging a fee before they settle or reduce a customer’s debt to the Internal Revenue Service, credit card company, or other unsecured debt. The new rule by the Federal Trade Commission covers telemarketers of for-profit debt-relief services, including credit counseling, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. Nonprofit firms are not affected by the rule.

Questions:
1.  What is this ruling meant to prevent?  Explain this in terms of GAAP recognition of revenue.
2. Under the new ruling, providers’ fees for a single debt must be in proportion to the total fee that would be charged if all of the debts had been settled.  Assume that John Smith has 3 debts enrolled ($150,000, $450,000, and $300,000) and the company agrees to settle the debts for a charge of $1,200 for settling the debt.  When they settle the $450,000 debt according to the new ruling, how much of this fee can they collect?
3. Under the ruling, if a consumer enrolls multiple debts into one debt relief program and the provider bases its fee on the percentage of what the consumer saves as result of using its services, the percentage charged must be the same for each of the consumer’s debts, according to the FTC. Can you think of a possible situation where manipulation of this part of the ruling may be used by debt-relief services to gain greater fees?  If so, how do you think this can be investigated?

Source:
Staff. (2010). FTC rule prohibits debt-relief companies from collecting up-front fees. AccountingWEB, October 27. (Retrievable online at http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/tax/ftc-rule-prohibits-debt-relief-companies-collecting-front-fees)

Put Me First In Line

Former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway and his business partner gave $15 million to a hedge-fund manager now accused of running a Ponzi scheme.  In court papers filed by Elway and Mitch Pierce the two claim that their investment was supposed to be kept in a separate account from Mueller’s Over Under Fund. Therefore, the Denver Broncos legend is seeking a declaratory judgment for the return of their money, ahead of other investors. Mueller Capital Management has just $9.5 million left to cover liabilities of $140 million.

Questions:

1.  What is a hedge fund?

2.  What accounting guidance for hedge accounting is available under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)?

3.   What accounting guidance for hedge accounting is available from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)?

4.  As one accountant said of this story: “It’s hard to feel sorry for rich people who play in games without rules (hedge funds).” Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

 

Source:

Staff. (2010) Hall of Famer Elway Seeks Mueller Money Now. FINAlternatives, October 19 (Retrievable online at http://www.finalternatives.com/node/14212).

New Revenue Recognition Standards on the Way for Contractors

Contractors should be educating themselves on the impact of the new proposed revenue recognition standards and the recently published (June 24, 2010) exposure draft pertaining to revenue from contracts with customers. Public comments are due October 22, 2010, and it is expected the standards will be finalized in 2011.

Questions:

1. What are some of the significant changes in this standard that will affect contractors?

2. How will the proposed standard define the economic unit of measure?

3. Explain what the new cost of capitalization rules will mean for contractors.

 

Source:

Henderson, J. (2010). Proposed Revenue Recognition Rules Would Significantly Affect Contractors, BKD Alerts, June (Retrievable online at http://www.bkd.com/industry/Construction-RealEstate/Insights/2010/2010-06alertsCRE-1.htm)

Scrushy Back in the News

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a new review of the convictions in the government corruption case against former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Questions:

1. What is the “honest services” fraud law?

2. What is a “quid pro quo” agreement?

3. A judge issued a $2.9 billion civil judgment against Scrushy. According to the opinion, what did Mr. Scrushy do and why?

 

Sources:

Johnson, B. (2010). Court Orders New Review of Siegelman, Scrushy Case, Associated Press, June 29 (Retrievable online at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEFj4h2WLTpKm2g7jltY0N0opHMgD9GL1FQO1

Memorandum Opinion in the 2002 Derivative Litigation for Jefferson County Alabama Circuit Court Case of Wade Tucker, et.al. versus Richard M. Scrushy, et. Al., June 18, 2009. (Retrievable online at http://www.hwnn.com/images/stories/files/Scrushy%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf)

Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of the PCAOB

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2010, that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) violates the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers principle because board members are not appointed by the president.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court stated that the president must have more power to remove PCAOB members. The five-member board is appointed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission after consultation with the Federal Reserve System’s chairman of the board of governors and the Secretary of the Treasury.

Question:

1.  How was the PCAOB originally established and why?

2.  Look at the ruling.  Which justices joined to support the ruling and which justices dissented?

3.  According to the sources listed, how do you think the ruling will affect the Board’s operations and why does Barry Melancon, president and CEO of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), see this as a victory for investors and for the accounting profession?

Source:
Supreme Court Opinion No. 08–861 (2010). Free Enterprise Fund et.al. versus Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, June 28 (Retrievable online at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-861.pdf)
Accounting WEB staff. (2010). UPDATE: Supreme Court Rules PCAOB Violates Constitution’s Separation of Powers Principle, Accounting WEB, June 28  (Retrievable online at http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/accounting-auditing/supreme-court-rules-pcaob-unconstitutional)

Next Page »