New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

AICPA CPA-Financial Exam - Topic 3 Question 56 Discussion

Actual exam question for AICPA's CPA-Financial exam
Question #: 56
Topic #: 3
[All CPA-Financial Questions]

On January 2, 1993, Quo, Inc. hired Reed to be its controller. During the year, Reed, working closely with Quo's president and outside accountants, made changes in accounting policies, corrected several errors dating from 1992 and before, and instituted new accounting policies.

Quo's 1993 financial statements will be presented in comparative form with its 1992 financial statements.

This question represents one of Quo's transactions. List B represents the general accounting treatment required for these transactions. These treatments are:

* Cumulative effect approach - Include the cumulative effect of the adjustment resulting from the accounting change or error correction in the 1993 financial statements, and do not restate the 1992 financial statements.

* Retroactive or retrospective restatement approach - Restate the 1992 financial statements and adjust 1992 beginning retained earnings if the error or change affects a period prior to 1992.

* Prospective approach - Report 1993 and future financial statements on the new basis but do not restate 1992 financial statements.

Item to Be Answered

The equipment that Quo manufactures is sold with a five-year warranty. Because of a production breakthrough, Quo reduced its computation of warranty costs from 3% of sales to 1% of sales.

List B (Select one)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Choice 'C' is correct. This affects only the prospective (current and subsequent) periods - not prior periods, not retained earnings.


Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Ayesha
4 months ago
Retroactive restatement could be necessary if it affects prior periods!
upvoted 0 times
...
Elena
4 months ago
Definitely the cumulative effect approach here, no need to restate 1992.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marsha
4 months ago
Wait, they can just change warranty costs like that? Seems odd.
upvoted 0 times
...
Anglea
4 months ago
I disagree, I think they should use the cumulative effect approach instead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beatriz
4 months ago
Sounds like a classic case for the prospective approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mollie
5 months ago
I’m a bit lost on this one. Could it be cumulative? But then again, it seems like we’re just adjusting future estimates, so maybe it’s prospective?
upvoted 0 times
...
Jeniffer
5 months ago
I practiced a similar question where we had to decide on restatement versus prospective treatment. I think this one leans towards the prospective approach too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margart
5 months ago
I’m not entirely sure, but I remember something about cumulative effects being used for changes that impact prior periods. This feels more like a future change though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebbecca
5 months ago
I think this might be a prospective approach since it’s about changing the estimate for future warranty costs, not correcting past errors.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joana
5 months ago
I've got a good feeling about option B. The key seems to be understanding the concept of "Network Slice isolation" and how that relates to resource and security.
upvoted 0 times
...
Honey
5 months ago
This looks like a pretty straightforward configuration question. I'd start by carefully reading through the details in the question and examining the exhibit to understand the context.
upvoted 0 times
...
Luis
5 months ago
Hmm, this seems straightforward. I'll start by carefully reading through the details about the organization-wide defaults and the user's profile permissions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Murray
5 months ago
I think I've got it! The accrued interest should be 1/12 of the annual coupon payment, which is $120. So the answer is $10.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel