CHAPTER 10 Short-Term Operating Assets Inventory · Solution Manual for Intermediate Accounting 1st edition Gordon In 2013, the FIFO cost of goods sold ($13,901 million) is lower

Solution Manual for Intermediate Accounting 1st edition Gordon

Solution Manual for Intermediate Accounting 1st edition Gordon,

Raedy & Sannella

Completed download:

https://solutionsmanualbank.com/download/solution-manual-for-

intermediate-accounting-gordon-raedy-sannella/

Related package: Test Bank for Intermediate Accounting 1st edition Gordon, Raedy

& Sannella

CHAPTER 10

Short-Term Operating Assets—

Inventory

Cases

Judgment Case 1: The Choice to Use LIFO

a. The LIFO reserve for Kroger as of February 1, 2014, and February 2, 2013, is $1,150

million and $1,098 million, respectively. Unlike many companies, Kroger presents this

directly on the face of their balance sheet.

b. If Kroger did not use LIFO, their inventory would be reported at $6,801 million

instead of $5,651 million ($6,801 FIFO inventory less $1,150 LIFO reserve). The

LIFO reserve results in a 16.9% decrease in the inventory balance ($1,150/$6,801).

Current assets are decreased by 11.5% {$1,150/($8,830+$1,150)}. Total assets are

decreased by 3.8% {$1,150/($29,281+$1,150)}.

c. The LIFO effect is measured as the increase in the balance in the LIFO reserve

account. Thus, the LIFO effect is $52 million ($1,150 million less $1,098 million).

d. If Kroger had not used LIFO, their earnings before income taxes would have been

$52 million higher, or $2,334 million ($2,282 plus $52 LIFO effect). Thus, the impact

on earnings before taxes is to decrease earnings by 2.2% ($52/$2,334).

e. Assuming a tax rate of 35%, Kroger would have paid $18.2 million additional taxes

for the year ended February 1, 2014 ($52 million LIFO effect x 35% tax rate). This

would be a 2.6% increase {$18.2/($679 taxes paid + $18.2 impact of LIFO}. Judgment Case 2: Inventory Costing

https://solutionsmanualbank.com/download/solution-manual-for-intermediate-accounting-gordon-raedy-sannella/

https://solutionsmanualbank.com/download/solution-manual-for-intermediate-accounting-gordon-raedy-sannella/

https://solutionsmanualbank.com/download/test-bank-for-intermediate-accounting-gordon-raedy-sannella/

https://solutionsmanualbank.com/download/test-bank-for-intermediate-accounting-gordon-raedy-sannella/


1. The judgment issue in this scenario is whether the reduced production in 20X4 is

abnormally low as discussed in paragraphs 3 through 6 of ASC 330-10-30. If the

production in that year is judged as abnormally low then it will not be used to

compute normal production. If it is not judged to be abnormally low, then it is used in

the computation of normal production. There is not one correct answer. Also, as

indicated in paragraph 6, the actual level of production may be used if it approximates

normal capacity. Thus, there are three possible answers as follows:

Scenario

Assume

production in

20X4 is

abnormally low

Assume that

production in

20X4 is normal

Use production

in 20X7

approximates

normal capacity

Fixed production costs

Normal capacity

Fixed production costs

allocated to inventory per

unit (fixed production

costs divided by normal

capacity)

Fixed costs allocated to

inventory (fixed

production costs times

units produced in the

current year)

Fixed costs expensed

immediately (Fixed

production costs less fixed

costs allocated to

inventory)

$2,000,000

9,900,000*

20.20202 cents

per baseball

$1,919,192

$80,808

$2,000,000

9,740,000**

20.53388 cents

per baseball

$1,950,719

$49,281

$2,000,000

9,500,000***

21.05263 cents

$2,000,000

$0

*Computed using an average of 20X2, 20X3, 20X5 and 20X6.

**Computed using an average of 20X2 through 20X6.

*** Computed using current year production.


Judgment Case 3: Lower-of-Cost-or-Market

This is a case that demonstrates that the selling price used to calculate NRV, and thus

the lower-of-cost-or-market is not always easy to determine. There are four possible

scenarios for KR Automotives. Due to different assumptions about future selling prices,

the write down could range from $0 to $4,500 per car.

Scenario

Cost

Replace-

ment

Cost

Selling

Price

Selling

Cost

NRV

NRV less a

normal

profit

margin

Market

Value

Write Down per

Car (Cost less

market value, if

lower)

Keep on

lot

$23,000

$20,000

$25,500

$500

$25,000

$21,175

$21,175

$1,825

Sell

overseas

23,000

20,000

19,000

500

18,500

15,650

18,500

4,500

Sell to

used car

lot

23,000

20,000

20,400

500

19,900

16,840

19,900

3,100

Sell at

auction

23,000

20,000

34,000

500

33,500

28,400

28,400

0

There is no right answer to this case. Students could pick one of the four values

presented in the table above for the per-car write down. Or, they could choose some

sort of blended rate. For example, they could assume that KR would sell the 20 cars to

the overseas dealer but sell the remaining cars on their lot.


Financial Statement Analysis: Solution to Case 1:

a. From Note 1, we know that Kimberly-Clark applies the lower of cost or market

where the LIFO cost-flow assumption is used for its U.S. inventories. For inventories

outside of the U.S., Kimberly-Clark also values these at the lower of cost or market

but uses either the FIFO or moving average cost-flow assumptions.

b. The LIFO reserve, called the Adjustment to LIFO, at the end of 2013, 2012 and

2011 is $242, $231 and $280 million, respectively.

c. The amount of inventory before the LIFO reserve is the FIFO inventory of $2,475,

$2,579 and $2,636 million at the end of 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

d. We can use a t-account for the LIFO reserve to determine the difference in cost of

goods sold under LIFO and FIFO as follows:

LIFO Reserve

December 31, 2011 Year-end adjustment

??

280 ??

December 31, 2012 Year-end adjustment

??

231 ??

December 31, 2013

242

The LIFO reserve decreases by $49 million in 2012 and the cost of goods sold under

FIFO would increase by $49 million. The LIFO reserve increases by $11 million in 2013 and the cost of goods sold under

FIFO would decrease by $11 million.

(in millions) 2012 2013

LIFO cost of goods sold

$14,314

$13,912 ←from income statement

(Increase)/decrease in LIFO reserve

49

(11)

FIFO cost of goods sold

14,363

$13,901

e. In 2012, FIFO cost of goods sold ($14,363 million) is higher than LIFO cost of goods

sold, indicating gross profit, taxes and net income would have been lower under

FIFO.


In 2013, the FIFO cost of goods sold ($13,901 million) is lower than LIFO cost of

goods sold, indicating gross profit, taxes and net income would have been higher

under FIFO.

f. Under LIFO and FIFO, the gross profit and gross profit percentage are as follows:

2012 2013

(in millions) LIFO FIFO LIFO FIFO

Net Sales $21,063 $21,063 $21,152 $21,152

Cost of Sales 14,314 14,363 13,912 13,901

Gross Profit $ 6,749 $ 6,700 $ 7,240 $ 7,251

Gross Profit Percentage 32.0% 31.8% 34.2% 34.3%

In 2012, under FIFO, the gross profit and gross profit percentage are lower due to

the decrease in the LIFO reserve which increased the cost of goods sold under

FIFO.

In 2013, under FIFO, the gross profit and gross profit percentage are higher due to

the increase in the LIFO reserve which decreased the cost of goods sold under

FIFO.

In 2012, under LIFO Kimberly-Clark’s inventory turnover would be 6.09, higher than

the 5.51 under FIFO. Even though the cost of goods sold is higher under FIFO, the

lower LIFO average inventory leads to higher LIFO inventory turnover. The days

inventory on hand under LIFO would be only 59.9 compared to 66.2 under FIFO.

In 2013, the inventory turnover decreased slightly under both LIFO and FIFO. The

days inventory on hand increased slightly under both LIFO and FIFO. Both

indicators remain more favorable under LIFO.


Indicator

2012

LIFO FIFO

Inventory Turnover =

Cost of Goods Sold Ratio Average Inventory

6.09 = $14, 314 $2, 352

5.51 = $14, 363 $2, 608

Beginning Inventory

Average =

+ Ending Inventory

Inventory 2

($2, 356 + $2, 348) $2, 352 =

2

($2, 636 + $2, 579 ) $2, 608 =

2

Days Inventory =

365

On Hand Inventory Turnover Ratio 59.9 =

365 6.09

66.2 = 365 5.51

Indicator

2013

LIFO

FIFO



6.07 = $13, 912 $2, 291

5.50 = $13, 901 $2, 527

Beginning Inventory

Average =

+ Ending Inventory

Inventory 2

($2, 348 + $2, 233) $2, 291 =

2

($2, 579 + $2, 475) $2, 527 =

2

Days Inventory =

365


365 6.07

66.4 = 365 5.50

g. From Note 1, Procter & Gamble primarily reports inventories at the lower of cost or

market value using the FIFO cost-flow assumption. Procter & Gamble states that

minor amounts of product inventories, including certain cosmetics and

commodities, are maintained using LIFO. Procter & Gamble does not disclose any

LIFO reserves, indicating that the difference between FIFO and LIFO inventories

must also be minor.

h. When converting Kimberly-Clark to FIFO, Kimberly-Clark’s inventory turnover ratio

is lower than Procter & Gamble’s. When converting Kimberly-Clark to FIFO,

Kimberly-Clark’s days inventory on hand is about eight days greater than Procter &

Gamble’s. Using FIFO as the comparison point, both Procter & Gamble’s higher

inventory turnover ratio and lower days inventory on hand appear more favorable

than Kimberly-Clark’s.

Kimberly-Clark Procter & Gamble

Indicator FIFO FIFO



5.50 6.23 = $42, 428 $6, 815

Beginning Inventory

Average =

+ Ending Inventory

Inventory 2

($6, 721+ $6, 909) $6, 815 =

2

Days Inventory =

365

On Hand Inventory Turnover Ratio

66.4 58.6 = 365 6.23


Solution to Case 2:

a. Note 6 on Merchandise Inventories indicates that Foot Locker uses the LIFO cost-

flow assumption for about 61% of its inventory and the FIFO cost-flow assumption

for the remaining 39%.

Cost Flow

Assumption 2013(in millions) Percent

LIFO $746 61%

FIFO $474 39%

$1,220

b. LIFO is allowed in the United States and usually has tax benefits, so Foot Locker

uses the LIFO cost-flow assumption in the United States. IFRS does not allow LIFO.

If Foot Locker has branches or subsidiaries in countries that use IFRS and have local

financial reporting requirements requiring the use of IFRS, Foot Locker would use

FIFO for those international operations.

c. From note 1, the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Foot Locker explains

its use of the retail inventory method:

Under the retail inventory method, cost is determined by applying a cost-to-retail

percentage across groupings of similar items, known as departments. The cost-to-

retail percentage is applied to ending inventory at its current owned retail valuation

to determine the cost of ending inventory on a department basis. The Company

provides reserves based on current selling prices when the inventory has not been

marked down to market.

d. From note 1, the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Foot Locker explains

that its cost of sales includes “the cost of merchandise, occupancy, buyers’

compensation, and shipping and handling costs.”

e. In note 6 on Merchandise Inventories, Foot Locker explains that the LIFO value of

inventory approximates its FIFO value. That is, the values of inventory measured

under LIFO versus FIFO are not materially different, giving Foot Locker a LIFO

reserve of zero.

f. Using Sales and Cost of Sales from the income statement, we compute Foot

Locker’s Gross Profit and Gross Profit Percentage as follows:

(in millions) 2013 2012 2011

Sales $6,505 $6,182 $5,623

Cost of Sales 4,372 4,148 3,827

Gross Profit $2,133 $2,034 $1,796

Gross Profit Percentage 32.8% 32.9% 31.9%

From 2011 to 2013, the gross profit percentage increased about 0.9%, indicating

that Foot Locker is able to generate approximately 0.9 cents more on each dollar of

1 Adapted from the Ernst & Young Academic Resource Center with permission of the Ernst & Young

Foundation. Copyright 2011. All rights reserved.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc.


sales in 2013 than it was in 2011. This increase in gross profit can be used to cover

other expenses or returned to the shareholders.

g. Foot Locker’s inventory turnover was 3.66 times a year and the days inventory on

hand was about 99.7, implying that every 99.7 days new inventory was added to

the stores as old inventory was sold.



3.66 = $4, 372 $1,194

Beginning Inventory

Average =

+ Ending Inventory

Inventory 2

($1,167 + $1, 220) $1,194 =

2

Days Inventory =

365


365 3.66

Surfing the Standards Case 1: Inventory in the Agriculture Industry1

MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE TO: Client File – Tarheel Farm, Inc.

FROM: Student Name

DATE: Assignment Date RE: Allocation of Costs Related to Inventory

FACTS

Tarheel Farm, Inc. (TFI) is a North Carolina corporation involved in agricultural

production and has an October 31 fiscal year-end. It is not publicly traded, but it is

required to prepare annual financial statements for its bank. The bank has required that

these statements comply with U.S. GAAP. TFI typically produces four products: beef

cattle, corn, winter wheat, and sugar beets. All four of these products have a life cycle

of less than one year. The remaining relevant facts can be summarized in the following

table.

1 Adapted from the Ernst & Young Academic Resource Center with permission of the Ernst & Young


© 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc.


Crop

Development

finished?

Accumulated

cost

Estimated

selling costs

Market price

Corn

Winter wheat

Beef cattle

Sugar beets

No

Yes

No

Yes

$95,000

27,000

50,000

5,000

$4,500

300

2,000

600

Not available, but

greater than cost

Current: $36,600

At harvest: $36,000

$70,000

No current reliable

market price; two

months ago worth

$10,000

ISSUE

What value should Tarheel Farm report on the balance sheet for agricultural products?

ANALYSIS

Under U.S. GAAP, agricultural products are broken up into two groups. The first group

is referred to as growing crops and animals being developed for sale. Generally

speaking, these products are those that have not yet been harvested or fully

developed. The second group is referred to as harvested crops and animals held for

sale. Generally speaking, these products are those that have been harvested or fully

developed. The general rules are as follows:

Growing crops and animals being developed for sale

ASC 905, Agriculture, specifies that growing crops (ASC 905-330-35-1) and animals

being developed for sale (ASC 905-330-35-2) should be reported at the lower of cost

or market.

Harvested crops and animals held for sale

ASC 905, Agriculture, specifies that harvested crops (ASC 905-330-35-4) and animals

held for sale (ASC 905-330-35-3) can be measured at the selling price less the cost of

disposal when the following three conditions are met: the market price is reliable,

realizable and easily determined; the costs of disposal are predictable and fairly

insignificant; and the inventory is currently ready for delivery. If these conditions aren’t

met, then the inventory should be reported at the lower of cost or market.

CONCLUSIONS

The agricultural products should be valued as follows:


Crop Valuation Explanation

Corn

Winter wheat

Beef cattle

Sugar beets

Total

$95,000

36,300

50,000

5,000

$186,300

LCM

FV at financial statement date less selling costs

LCM

LCM since there is no reliable market price

Surfing the Standards Case 2: Inventory in the Agriculture Industry - IFRS2

MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE

TO: Client File – Tarheel Farm, Inc.

FROM: Student Name

DATE: Assignment Date

RE: Allocation of Costs Related to Inventory

FACTS

Tarheel Farm, Inc. (TFI) is a North Carolina corporation involved in agricultural

production and has an October 31 fiscal year-end. It is not publicly traded, but it is

required to prepare annual financial statements for its bank. The bank has required that

these statements comply with IFRS. TFI typically produces four products: beef cattle,

corn, winter wheat, and sugar beets. All four of these products have a life cycle of less

than one year. The remaining relevant facts can be summarized in the following table.

Crop

Development

finished?

Accumulated

cost

Estimated

selling costs

Market price

Corn

Winter wheat

Beef cattle

Sugar beets

No

Yes

No

Yes

$95,000

27,000

50,000

5,000

$4,500

300

2,000

600

Not available, but

greater than cost

Current: $36,600

At harvest: $36,000

$70,000

No current reliable

market price; two

months ago worth

$10,000

2

Adapted from the Ernst & Young Academic Resource Center with permission of the Ernst & Young



ISSUE

What value should Tarheel Farm report on the balance sheet for agricultural products?

ANALYSIS

Using IFRS, agricultural products are broken up into two groups. The first group is

referred to as biological assets. Generally speaking, these products are those that have

not yet been harvested or fully developed. The second group is referred to as

agricultural produce. Generally speaking, these products are those that have been

harvested or fully developed. The general rules are as follows: Biological assets

According to paragraph 12 of IAS 41, biological assets should be valued at fair value

less the estimated selling costs. Paragraph 30 indicates that if a reliable fair value

cannot be determined, then biological assets should be reported at cost.

Agricultural produce

IAS 41, paragraph 13, states that agricultural produce should be measured at fair value

less the estimated selling costs at the point of harvest. This valuation then becomes the

cost basis for further measurement. After the point of harvest, the valuation of

agricultural produce is governed by IAS 2 (see paragraph 3 of IAS 41). Agricultural

produce after the point of harvest is valued at the lower of the cost (measured on the

basis of the rules contained in paragraph 13 of IAS 41) or net realizable value.

IAS 41 paragraph 32 states that agricultural produce is always measured at fair value

less costs to sell at the point of harvest. This paragraph states that the fair value at the

point of harvest can always be measured reliably.


CONCLUSIONS

The agricultural products should be valued as follows:

Crop Valuation Explanation

Corn

Winter wheat

Beef cattle

Sugar beets

Total

$95,000

35,700

68,000

9,400

$208,100

Cost, since FV cannot be reliably determined

Lower of cost or NRV where cost is defined as FV

at harvest less selling costs

FV less disposal costs

Lower of cost or NRV where cost is defined as FV

at harvest less selling costs.

The fair value from two months ago is used as fair

value at harvest since the standard specifically

requires the use of fair value.

Surfing the Standards Case 3: Time Shares

MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE

TO: Client File – Treasure Island Corporation

FROM: Student Name

DATE: Assignment Date

RE: Accounting Treatment for Time-Share Transaction

FACTS

Treasure Island Corporation (TIC) sells time shares in luxury ocean-front cottages. TIC

uses the full accrual method for revenue recognition.

The current project consists of 100 cottages at a cost of $110.24 million. Each cottage

is available for 52 weekly time shares per year.

TIC sold 1,924 weekly time shares in this project in the current year with the following

terms:

Price = $40,000 each

Down payment = 20%, no other payments received this year

Estimate of uncollectible accounts = $0


ISSUE

How should TIC allocate the $110.24 million cost to inventory and cost of goods sold?

ANALYSIS

The guidance for accounting for entities that sell real estate time-share interests is

provided in ASC 978. ASC 978-10 provides an overview and defines relevant terms

used later in the Codification. ASC 978-330 addresses accounting treatment for time-share transactions that

specifically relate to inventory. ASC 978-330-15-3 indicates that this subtopic applies

to all time-sharing transactions accounted for under the full accrual method of revenue

recognition. ASC 978-330-30-1 provides the specific guidance for accounting for inventory and cost

of goods sold when time shares are sold. Paragraph 1 stipulates that entities should

use the relative sales value method for the sales transaction. ASC 978-330-20 defines

the relative sales value method: “Under the relative sales value method, cost of sales is

calculated as a percentage of net sales using a cost-of-sales percentage-- the ratio of

total estimated cost … to total estimated time-sharing revenue.” ASC 978-330-30-1 also refers to ASC 978-605-55-38 for an example. This paragraph

provides a full example for a similar transaction to the one in which TIC is engaged. CONCLUSIONS

TIC will compute cost of sales using the cost-of-sales percentage. The cost-of-sales

percentage is computed as the total estimated cost divided by total estimated

revenues.

Total estimated revenue = 100 cottages x 52 weeks x $40,000 = $208 million Cost-of-sales percentage = $110.24 million / $208 million = 53%

Cost of sales is then computed as sales multiplied by this percentage. Inventory is

measured as the remaining expected revenue multiplied by this percentage. Sales = 1,924 x $40,000 = $76,960,000

Sales $76,960,000

Cost-of-sales percentage 53%

Cost of sales $40,788,800


Total expected revenue $208,000,000 Current year revenue 76,960,000

Remaining expected

revenue

$131,040,000

Cost of sales percentage 53%

Inventory balance $69,451,200

Thus, TIC will record cash of $15,392,000, a note receivable balance of $61,568,000

(80% x $76,960,000), an inventory balance of $69,451,200, sales revenue of

$76,960,000, and a cost of sales of $40,788,800.

Surfing the Standards Case 4: Lower-of-cost-or-market The guidance for this case is found in ASC 330-10-55-2. Paragraph 2 states that if a

price recovery is not certain in the near-term, then a decline in the market price of

inventory below cost should be recorded as a write-down unless substantial evidence

exists that the market price will recover before the inventory is sold. However,

paragraph 2 also indicates that “a write-down is generally required unless the decline is

due to seasonal price fluctuations.” This case does involve judgment – and students could support either an answer that

the inventory should be written down to $18 per dollar less disposal costs or that it

shouldn’t be written down.

In support of the conclusion that a write-down should not be recorded the student

could argue that management is fairly certain that the dolls will sell above cost. In support of the conclusion that a write-down should be recorded the student could

utilize the statement in paragraph 2 that a write down should generally be recorded

unless the price fluctuation is seasonal. The student would assert that the decline

exists and is not seasonal. Basis for Conclusions Case 1: The Use of LIFO

a. The IASB states that their primary reason for not allowing LIFO is that it lacks

representational faithfulness in its depiction of the actual flow of goods.

b. Since this is an opinion question, there is no correct answer. However, the IASB’s

argument seems reasonable – very few entities would actually process their

inventory on a LIFO basis.


Basis for Conclusions Case 2: The Lower of Cost or Market3

Scene 1:

Under U.S. GAAP, we typically think of asset write-downs as being a result of

conservatism. Conservatism is defined in Concepts Statement No. 2 as: “A prudent

reaction to uncertainty to try to ensure that uncertainty and risks inherent in business

situations are adequately considered.” Under IFRS, we typically think of asset write-

downs as being a result of prudence. Prudence is defined in the IASB framework

(paragraph 37) as: “the inclusion of a degree of caution in the exercise of the

judgments needed in making the estimates required under conditions of uncertainty,

such that assets or income are not overstated and liabilities or expenses are not

understated.” Scene 2:

U.S. GAAP seems to be solely focused on the income statement since the only issue

stated is the proper determination of income. IFRS is somewhat broader, discussing

both the cost to be recognized as an asset, as well as the amount to be later

recognized as expense. Scene 3:

Both the write-down and the reversal of the write-down probably do a better job of

presenting balance sheet information than income statement information. Thus, it

makes some sense that IFRS with its broader focus objective would be more likely to

allow the reversal since the objective stated in U.S. GAAP only refers to the income

statement.

Scene 4: No. A very important distinction between reversing a prior write-down and market

valuation is that when a prior write-down is reversed, the gain reported cannot exceed

the original write-down. Thus, the inventory can never exceed its original cost. Under

a fair value system, the inventory would be reported at its market value, no matter

whether that was above or below the original cost. Scene 5:

In general, the U.S. GAAP basis of conclusion does not provide much useful

information (other than the fact that most respondents to the exposure draft of SFAS

No. 144 agreed with the Board), thus the response to this question relies heavily upon

3 Reprinted from the Ernst & Young Academic Resource Center with permission of the Ernst & Young



the information provided in IAS 36. Note that only the reasons stated in IAS 36 that

would apply to inventory are included in the following discussion.

Reasons to oppose:

• Reversals are not consistent with the historical cost system. Since a write-down

results in a new cost basis, a reversal is no different than an upward revaluation.

• Reversals result in increased volatility in reported income.

• Reversals are not useful to users of the financial statements since the inventory

cannot be written up above the original cost.

• Reversals allow for the manipulation of earnings.

• It is costly to continue to evaluate inventory for the need to reverse prior write-

downs.

Reasons to support:

• The asset is now expected to provide greater future economic benefits.

• Since a reversal is not a revaluation, it is not contrary to historical cost

accounting.

• A write-down of inventory is merely an estimate. Thus, a reversal is merely a

change in an estimate, which we do in other areas of accounting.

• Reversals are value relevant to users.

Scene 6:

This is purely an opinion question with no right or wrong answer. However, it could

serve to provide a very interesting classroom discussion.

More download links:

intermediate accounting gordon raedy sannella solutions manual

intermediate accounting 1st edition gordon test bank

intermediate accounting reporting and analysis 2nd edition solutions

intermediate accounting reporting and analysis 1st edition solutions

solution manual for intermediate accounting reporting and analysis 1st

edition by wahlen

intermediate accounting wahlen jones pagach solutions

intermediate accounting gordon raedy sannella solutions

intermediate accounting gordon pdf

https://goo.gl/xQaYaG

https://goo.gl/9gouAE


intermediate accounting reporting and analysis 2nd edition solution

manual

intermediate accounting reporting and analysis solutions

Documents

CHAPTER 10 Short-Term Operating Assets Inventory · Solution Manual for Intermediate Accounting 1st edition Gordon In 2013, the FIFO cost of goods sold ($13,901 million) is lower