|
 
|
||||
|
|||||
          Search Software Personal Help
|
By Patricia McConnell and Paul Pacter Changes in the way business segments are reported are under way. The
FASB and its Canadian counterpart are leaning toward a management approach
that would base segments on present management classifications. The International
Accounting Standards Board first proposed an approach based on risks and
rewards. But a strong desire to harmonize the worldwide approach has caused
a change in direction back toward the American-Canadian thinking. At a board meeting in Amsterdam in May 1995, the International Accounting
Standards Committee (IASC) reached agreement on a set of principles designed
to improve its existing standards for reporting segment information--information
about a company's operations in different industries and geographical areas.
A draft of those principles had been issued for public comment in September
1994. The approved principles reflect some modifications to the 1994 proposal,
and the IASC now is working to develop an exposure draft of a proposed
standard based on the approved principles. Concurrently, the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and
Canadian Accounting Standards Board (CASB) are in the midst of a joint
project to improve their national segment reporting standards. The tentative
conclusions of the two boards were released for public comment in February
1995. Like IASC, the FASB and the Canadians are developing an exposure
draft. The IASC is a London-based private-sector organization formed over 20
years ago to improve and harmonize accounting and financial reporting standards
worldwide. It has 110 member bodies from 82 countries. IASC standards are deliberated and approved by a board that includes
representatives of 13 countries and the International Coordinating Committee
of Financial Analysts' Associations. The U.S. is represented on the IASC
board by a two-person delegation appointed, one each, by the AICPA and
the Institute of Management Accountants. A member of the FASB attends all
of the meetings of the IASC board as an observer with the right of the
floor, but no vote. The IASC follows a due process similar to FASB's. To date, the IASC
has issued 32 standards. One of its earliest was IAS No. 14, Reporting
Financial Information by Segment, issued nearly 15 years ago. IAS No. 14's
segment reporting requirements are similar to FASB's, though less detailed.
A company that is in compliance with FASB standards is likely also to be
in compliance with IAS No. 14. The usefulness of segment information in assessing the risks and prospects
of a diversified or multinational enterprise is indisputable. The following
quote from a 1993 position paper, Financial Reporting in the 1990s and
Beyond, issued by the Association for Investment Management and Research,
leaves no doubt about the value of segment reporting: It is vital, essential, fundamental, indispensable, and integral to
the investment analysis process. Analysts need to know and understand how
the various components of a multifaceted enterprise behave economically.
One weak member of the group is analogous to a section of blight on a piece
of fruit; it has the potential to spread rot over the entirety. Even in
the absence of weakness, different segments will generate dissimilar streams
of cash flows to which are attached disparate risks and which bring about
unique values. Thus, without disaggregation, there is no sensible way to
predict the overall amounts, timing, or risks of a complete enterprise's
future cash flows. There is little dispute over the analytic usefulness
of disaggregated financial data. Similar views have been expressed by the accounting committees of the
international analysts' organization ("the segregation of information
by branch of activity, or by geographical area, is essential") and
by the European analysts' group ("segment reporting enables the user
to better understand an enterprise's past performance, and thus facilitates
making judgments about the enterprise as a whole including a better assessment
of risks and prospects"). Financial statement preparers, auditors,
and accounting academicians concur as to the importance of segment information,
and research demonstrates the value of segment data in improving the ability
to forecast enterprise-wide data. The current IASC segment reporting standard was adopted in 1981. It
requires publicly traded and large nonpublic companies to report revenues,
operating profit (result), and identifiable assets for each industry and
geographical segment. That standard is a relatively brief 25 paragraphs,
including only seven paragraphs of formal rules. The IASC requirements are fairly similar to the existing Canadian and
U.S. segment pronouncements, though the U.S. standard, in particular, contains
much more detailed guidance in its 106 paragraphs and requires a few more
items of disclosure, including capital spending and depreciation for industry
segments. Financial analysts consistently say that segment information reported
under * Too many companies hide behind a broad definition of industry to argue
that they do not have any industry segments. A FASB study of 6,935 public
companies found that about 75% said they operated in only one industry
segment in the 19851991 period. Looking only at the 1,051 companies
with sales over $1 billion, 43% were single-segment companies. A similar
IASC study of the 1,062 largest companies in 32 countries found that about
38% were single-segment. * Not only do reported geographical areas blend too many diverse countries,
analysts need geographical information based on both location of operations
(origin of sales) and location of customers (destination of sales). * Too many changes in segment definition from period to period impair
comparability and trend analysis. * More items of data for each segment should be reported. * Segment data should relate to other data reported by the company.
* Quarterly segment reporting is not required. * The organizational units by which the business is managed and the
segments for which data is reported by the company outside its financial
statements are not articulated as important criteria for reporting segments
in financial statements. Those and other criticisms, as well as pressure from securities regulators,
have led to the current reconsideration of existing standards. In April 1994, the IASC Steering Committee published a background paper
that analyzed current segment reporting practices in 32 countries and identified
and discussed 13 basic issues and 40 subissues confronting the IASC in
its project. Then, in September 1994, the IASC issued for public comment
a Draft Statement of Principles (DSOP), Reporting Financial Information
by Segment. The DSOP proposed an objective of segment reporting and 52
principles for implementing that objective. The objective (see Exhibit 1) acknowledged the relevance of segment
information for assessing the risks and prospects of an enterprise as a
whole. That objective is based on the overall objectives of financial reporting adopted by the IASC and is consistent with the objectives
adopted by the American and Canadian standards boards in their project.
The proposed principles dealt with the scope of a new IASC segment reporting
standard; how to define business and geographical segments; tests for significance;
definitions of segment revenue, expense, result, assets, and liabilities;
segment accounting policies; and information to be disclosed. The most important and contentious of the principles in the DSOP concerned
the definitions of business segments and geographical segments. Consistent
with the proposed objective of segment reporting, the DSOP presumed that
a company's primary business risks are the result of producing diverse
types of products and services and operating in diverse geographical areas.
Therefore, the DSOP proposed defining business segments by grouping products
and services based on differences in risks and returns and defining geographical
segments based on the risks and returns of operating in different countries
or groups of related countries. This approach is known as the "risks
and returns approach." Fundamental to the approach adopted in the DSOP was the premise that
the needs of investors and creditors can sometimes require that segment
information reported in financial statements differ from that reported
and used internally to run the business. Also, as proposed in the DSOP,
a reportable business segment must earn significant revenues from customers
outside the enterprise rather than primarily from internal transfers to
other segments. The American-Canadian project has taken a somewhat different tack in
defining segments, adopting an approach that they are calling the "management
approach." Under the management approach, a company would report financial
information about each of its major organizational units for which financial
results are already maintained and analyzed by top management. To be classified
as an operating segment, an organizational unit must earn revenues and
incur expenses. Further, its manager must be directly accountable for its
financial performance to the enterprise's chief operating or executive
officer. Under the management approach, an organizational unit can be a segment
even if most or all of its revenue is generated from sales to other segments.
Moreover, the requirement to disclose segment data externally should not
involve producing information that management does not use. While the management approach appears to be quite different from the
DSOP approach, for many companies there may not be much of a difference
in the resulting segments. In fact, the DSOP had expressed a presumption
that a company's internal organizational and financial reporting structure
generally differentiates its principal business risks and prospects. Moreover,
revisions that have been made by IASC, discussed below, bring the two proposals
much closer together in their approaches to defining segments. The IASC received 65 written responses to the DSOP. In February 1995,
the Steering Committee held a daylong consultative meeting with 21 invited
commentators to discuss the DSOP and the American-Canadian proposal. The
views expressed were diverse. While a majority supported a risks-and-returns
approach to defining segments, many industry representatives favored defining
segments based on internal organizational structures. A common thread was
support for consistent segment reporting standards promulgated by the IASC
and national accounting standards bodies including those in the U.S. and
Canada. The Steering Committee has since held several meetings to consider the
comments on its DSOP and to review the tentative conclusions of the American
and Canadian boards. A specific goal of the Steering Committee has been
to identify how its conclusions might be brought more closely into harmony
with those of the North American project. The Steering Committee reaffirmed the overall objective of reporting
segment information as proposed in the DSOP. In fact, the Committee concluded
that the relevance and benefits of segment information for economic decisionmaking
are compelling. Users of financial statements need segment information
to assess the risks and prospects of a diversified or multinational enterprise
that may not be determinable from aggregated data alone. As a result of the comment process, the Steering Committee has made
two important changes to the approach to determining segments that had
been proposed in the DSOP. One change is to adopt "two-tier"
segmentation, with either product/service segments or geographical segments
as the dominant basis of segment reporting and the other secondary. The
other important change is expressly to look to a company's internal organizational
and management structure and its system of internal financial reporting
to the chief financial officer both for the purpose of determining the
dominant and secondary bases of segmentation and for the purpose of identifying
specific reportable segments within the dominant and secondary formats.
Numerous other changes were made to the principles in the DSOP based
on the comments received. The final Statement of Principles approved by
the IASC Board in May contains 55 principles that will form the basis for
developing an IASC exposure draft. Brief summaries of those principles
are included in Exhibit 2. A fundamental conclusion in the DSOP is that companies should continue
to be required to report information for both product-based business segments
and geographical segments, consistent with the expressed needs of shareholders,
creditors, financial analysts, and other users of financial statements.
Some responses to the DSOP noted, however, that most companies' primary
business risks and opportunities are either product-driven or geographically-driven,
and a company's internal financial reporting structure can be presumed
to indicate which of the two is dominant. They recommended that the principles
in the DSOP be modified so that the dominant source of business risk is
the primary basis on which the company is required to report segment information,
with full information reported on the primary basis and considerably less
on the secondary basis. The Steering Committee concurred with that recommendation. As a result,
the exposure draft that the IASC is now developing will provide for "two-tier"
segment reporting for most enterprises. However, companies whose business
risks are equally product- and geographically-driven--as evidenced by a
"matrix" approach to managing the company and to reporting internally
to the chief executive--would report full segment information on both bases.
As mentioned earlier, the exposure draft being developed by IASC will
rely, first and foremost, on a company's internal organizational and management
structure and its system of internal financial reporting to the chief financial
officer for determining dominant and secondary bases of segmentation and
for identifying specific reportable segments. In doing so, however, the
objective is still to produce information that is useful in assessing the
company's risks and opportunities from product/service diversification
and geographical diversification. If a company's internal organizational
structure and internal management reporting system are based neither on
groups of related products and services nor on geography, then the internally
reported segment data would not achieve the avowed objective of segment
reporting. Consequently, the management of the company would be required
to determine whether the company's primary risks and returns are related
more to the products and services it produces or more to the geographical
areas in which it operates and then to choose either business segments
or geographical segments as the company's primary segment reporting format.
The Steering Committee expects these situations to be rare. By identifying one basis of segmentation as primary and the other as
secondary based presumptively on a company's internal organizational and
financial reporting structure, and by looking to the company's internal
reporting for the purpose of identifying externally reportable segments,
the IASC's revised approach to defining segments is similar to the approach
in the American-Canadian tentative conclusions. Nonetheless, providing information useful in assessing a company's risks
and returns is retained by IASC as the fundamental objective that, occasionally,
may override the pure management approach. The IASC's proposal that a company
must choose either business segments or geographical segments as its primary
format if its internal organizational structure and management reporting
system are not based either on related products and services or on geography
does not have a counterpart in the American-Canadian proposal. This has
led some people to describe the IASC proposal as "a management approach
with a risks-and-rewards safety net." The following are some of the more significant changes to present practice
that are likely to result if the principles approved in May by the IASC
Board were adopted in a final IASC pronouncement: * Companies will no longer be able to escape segment reporting by arguing
that they are in a single broad "industry" as traditionally defined.
(Exhibit 3 summarizes the number of industry segments companies currently
reported in 32 countries worldwide). Moreover, with criteria and expanded
guidance for grouping related products and services into business segments,
there is less chance that disparate risks and returns would be commingled.
The IASC's use of the term "business segments" in place of "industry
segments" reflects the underlying substantive change in how a company
will identify its reportable segments. * In most cases, the segments for which a company reports performance
information internally to the chief executive officer will also be its
externally reportable segments. * A group of related products or services that generates more than 10%
of consolidated external revenue would be reported as a secondary business
segment even if a majority of the segment's sales are to other segments.
* While individual countries are not presumed to be separately reportable
geographical segments, combining countries whose risks and returns are
different is inconsistent with the objective of segment reporting and the
proposed * Although the current 10% significance tests for business and geographical
segments would be maintained, to improve interperiod comparability a segment
that falls below 10% would continue to be reported if company management
deems it to have continuing significance. * In addition to segment revenue, operating profit, and assets, which
must be disclosed under the current standards, the IASC would require disclosure
of segment liabilities, noncash operating expenses, capital expenditures,
depreciation, and unusual items. * Multinational companies would be required to disclose revenue from
external customers by the geographical markets in which those revenues
are earned (destination of sales). * Although excluded from computation of segment operating profit, certain
items would be disclosed separately by segment if they are directly attributable
or allocable to segments on a reasonable basis: interest and dividend income,
interest expense, extraordinary items, equity method investments and earnings,
and contingencies and commitments. * Reconciliation of segment revenue, operating profit, assets, and liabilities
to related consolidated totals would be required. * Special disclosures would be required if a company's segment reporting
changes from one period to the next or if total external revenue of all
business segments is not at least 75% of consolidated revenue. Several areas of difference remain between the views of the Steering
Committee and the American and Canadian boards, in addition to IASC's "safety
net" in applying the management approach described earlier. Under
the IASC Steering Committee's proposal, business segments and geographical
areas (whichever is a company's primary basis for segment reporting) would
have to earn significant revenue from sales to outside customers. This
differs from the American-Canadian proposal, which would treat vertically
integrated activities as reportable segments if information about them
is reported internally. Also, under the IASC proposal, a common measure of segment result would
be reported for all segments (essentially operating profit before corporate
expenses, interest, taxes, extraordinary items, equity-method income, and
deduction of minority interest), and the accounting principles used in
preparing segment information would be the same as those used in preparing
the company's or group's financial statements. The American-Canadian approach
does not require a common definition of segment result for all companies.
Instead, companies would report segment result in their financial statements
at whatever level it is reported internally, which might range from contribution
to gross profit to operating profit (pre-tax or after-tax), to net income.
It might even differ from one segment to the next within a single company.
Nor does the American-Canadian approach require that the same accounting
principles be used in preparing segment information as are used in preparing
the consolidated financial statements. Companies would report as segment
information whatever is reported internally, even if it is not based on
GAAP. It need not even be accrual basis or incurred historical cost, if
performance is measured internally on another basis. The IASC approach prohibits allocations of joint revenues and expenses
to segments if a reasonable allocation basis does not exist. The American-Canadian
approach requires the identical allocations for external segment reporting
purposes as are made for internal reporting purposes, even if the allocations
are somewhat arbitrary or understandable only by internal management experience.
Finally, the American-Canadian approach does not impose a threshold
of significance for identifying reportable segments--whatever is reported
internally. The steering committee would retain the 10% cut-off proposed
in the DSOP. Under the Steering Committee's revisions to the DSOP, if a company's
primary basis for segment reporting is along product and service lines,
it would be required to report three items of data for each significant
geographical area in which it operates: sales to external customers by
location of customer, and identifiable assets and capital expenditures
by location of assets. Similarly, if a company's primary basis for segment
reporting is along geographical lines, it would be required to report three
items of data for each significant product and service line: sales to external
customers, identifiable assets, and capital expenditures by location of
assets. While this two-tier segmentation is similar to the American-Canadian
proposal, an important difference is that the Steering Committee would
measure the significance of a second-tier segment at the enterprise-wide
level, whereas the Americans and Canadians would measure it at the segment
level. The IASC believes that it is highly desirable that its segment reporting
proposal and the American-Canadian proposal be as consistent as possible
and, if inconsistencies remain, that both groups understand fully the nature
of, and reasons for, the inconsistencies. Therefore, in approving the final
Statement of Principles as a basis for developing an exposure draft, the
IASC Board instructed its segment reporting Steering Committee and its
staff to work with the American-Canadian project team with the objective
of harmonizing the two exposure drafts to the extent possible. Further,
IASC has invited the U.S. and Canadian standards board members to meet
with the IASC for board-level discussions at IASC's next board meeting.
The Steering Committee plans to present a final version of an exposure
draft to the full IASC Board at its meeting in November 1995, for approval
to issue it for public comment. The American and Canadian boards have an
approximately similar timetable for their exposure drafts. * Patricia McConnell, CPA, is a managing director and accounting analyst
in the research department of Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. She chairs the
Segment Reporting Steering Committee of the International Accounting Standards
Committee and is a member and former chairperson of the Financial Accounting
Policy Committee of the Association for Investment Management and Research.
Paul Pacter, PhD, CPA, is professor of accounting at the University of
Connecticut's Stamford MBA program and project consultant to the IASC on
its segment reporting project. The objective of reporting financial information by segment is to provide
information about the different types of business activities in which an
enterprise is engaged and the different geographical areas in which it
operates to help users of financial statements-- * better understand the enterprise's past performance; * better assess its risks and prospects; and * make more informed judgments about the enterprise as a whole. Principles 1-5: Scope of Applicability 1. Segment data required in complete sets of financial statements, annual
or interim. 2. Revised IASC standard would apply to public and large private companies.
3. Would apply to subsidiaries of foreign enterprises only if it applies
to domestic firms. 4. Segment data not required in parent-only statements if in consolidated
statements. 5. Voluntary segment disclosures must comply with the standard. Principles 6-10: Identifying Business and Geographical Segments 6. A business segment is a distinguishable component of an enterprise
that provides a product or service or a group of related products or services
and that is subject to risks and rewards that are different from those
of other business segments. 7. A geographical segment is a distinguishable component that provides
products or services within a particular geographical area and that is
subject to risks and returns that are different from those of components
operating in other geographical areas. 8. The dominant source and nature of an enterprise's risks and returns
should govern whether its primary segment reporting format will be business
segments or geographical segments. 9. An enterprise's internal organizational structure and internal financial
reporting system should be the basis for determining its primary segment
reporting format except-- a. if its risks and returns are equally product/service and geographically
related, then both are primary; and b. if its internal organization and reporting are along neither product/service
nor geographical lines, management must choose business segments or geographical
segments as primary. 10. An enterprise's internally reported segments should also be its
externally reported segments except-- a. if there is evidence that the internal segments do not satisfy the
definitions of business or geographical segments in Principles 6 and 7,
then the definitions prevail; b. if its internal organization and reporting are along neither product/service
nor geographical lines, management must define its segments based on the
factors in Principles 6 and 7; and c. if two or more segments separately reported internally are essentially
the same, they may be combined for external segment reporting purposes.
Principles 11-12: Identifying Reportable Segments 11. A segment is reportable if a majority of its revenue is earned from
sales to external customers and its revenue, result, and assets are significant
(10% tests). 12. Once the 10% tests are met, a segment that drops below 10% continues
to be reportable if deemed to be of continuing significance. Principles 13-23: Definitions of Segment Revenue, Expense, and Result
13. Definition of segment revenue--attributable or allocable, external
or intersegment. 14. Extraordinary income items are not included in segment revenue.
15. Interest and dividend income are not segment revenue (except financial
segments). 16. Share of net profit of equity method associates is not segment revenue.
17. Definition of segment expense--attributable or allocable, external
or intersegment. 18. Extraordinary expense items are not included in segment expense.
19. Interest expense is not segment expense (except financial segments).
20. Share of net loss of equity method associates is not segment expense.
21. Income tax expense is not segment expense. 22. Definition of segment result--segment revenue minus segment expense.
23. Minority interest is not deducted in determining segment result.
Principles 24-28: Definition of Segment Assets and Liabilities 24. Definition of segment assets--operating assets used in ordinary
activities. 25. Deferred income tax assets and equity method investments are not
segment assets. 26. Segment assets are net of provisions and allowances. 27. Definition of segment liabilities--operating liabilities arising
in ordinary activities. 28. Deferred income tax liabilities are not segment liabilities. Principles 29-31: Segment Accounting Policy Issues 29. Segment accounting policies must conform to enterprise/consolidated
policies. 30. Intragroup balances and transactions are not eliminated in segment
data. 31. Allocate jointly used assets and related revenues/ expenses to segments
consistently. Principles 32-47: Disclosures for Primary Segments 32. Same information is disclosed for all reportable segments on the
primary basis. 33. Special disclosures for an enterprise in a single business or geographical
segment. 34. Disclose segment revenue, separating external and intersegment revenue.
35. Disclose segment result. 36. Disclose interest/dividend income and expense attributable to nonfinancial
segments. 37. Disclose carrying amount of segment assets, net of allowances. 38. Disclose segment liabilities. 39. Disclose contingencies, commitments, off-balance-sheet items. 40. Disclose capital expenditures. 41. Disclose depreciation and amortization. 42. Disclose large, unusual, or nonrecurring items in segment revenue
or expense. 43. Disclose extraordinary items attributable to a segment. 44. Disclose noncash operating expenses other than depreciation and
amortization. 45. Disclose share of net profit or loss of equity method associates
attributable to segments. 46. Disclose investment in equity method associates attributable to
segments. 47. Reconcile segment revenue, result, assets, and liabilities to related
consolidated totals. Principles 48-50: Disclosures for Secondary Segments 48. If the primary format is business segments, disclose external revenue,
carrying amount of assets, and capital expenditures for each geographical
segment. 49. If the primary format is geographical segments, disclose external
revenue, carrying amount of assets, and capital expenditures for each business
segment. 50. If the primary format is geographical segments based on location
of assets, disclose external revenue by geographical location of customers.
Principles 51-55: Other Disclosure Matters 51. Disclose external and intersegment revenue for any segment that
earns a majority of its revenue from internal sales if its external revenue
is 10% or more of consolidated revenue. 52. Price intersegment transfers on whatever basis (cost, market, etc.)
is used internally. 53. Disclose changes in segment accounting policies. 54. Describe activities of business segments and composition of geographical
segments. 55. Special disclosure if total segment revenue is not at least 75%
of consolidated. Companies with More than Companies with More than Total Number Average Average Average of Large Number of Number of Consolidated Companies Number of % of Industry Number of % of Geographic Sales Revenue
Examined Companies Total Segments Companies Total Areas US $(000) Argentina 1 1 100.0% 3.0 0 0.0% $ 626,225 Australia 15 10 66.7 4.7 8 53.2 3.3 7,606,191 Austria 13 5 38.5 3.6 0 0.0 2,788,989 Belgium 13 8 61.5 4.3 5 38.5 3.0 8,029,282 Brazil 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 2,635,836 Canada 29 15 51.7 3.7 13 44.8 2.8 7,059,173 Chile 3 2 66.7 3.5 0 0.0 897,895 Denmark 31 13 41.9 3.8 5 16.1 5.0 1,967,120 Finland 36 27 75.0 4.4 18 50.0 4.3 2,523,029 France 78 52 66.7 4.1 33 42.3 4.1 12,805,813 Germany 80 60 75.0 4.2 42 52.5 5.0 13,241,053 Greece 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 740,282 Hong Kong 12 10 83.3 4.3 5 41.7 4.8 3,259,214 Ireland 7 4 57.1 2.5 6 85.7 3.5 1,825,972 Italy 29 14 48.3 4.6 6 20.7 4.7 10,485,153 Japan 205 123 60.0 3.1 7 3.4 3.0 16,071,955 Malaysia 5 5 100.0 5.4 2 40.0 3.5 1,486,204 Mexico 8 2 25.0 3.5 0 0.0 2,858,523 Netherlands 16 11 68.8 3.9 13 81.3 3.8 16,731,360 New Zealand 7 4 57.1 5.3 4 57.1 3.5 2,300,222 Norway 19 12 63.2 4.3 5 26.3 4.6 2,828,938 Philippines 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 643,025 Portugal 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 655,682 Singapore 4 3 75.0 5.3 2 50.0 3.5 1,693,041 South Africa 28 16 57.1 4.0 1 3.6 4.0 2,419,728 South Korea 9 1 11.1 3.0 0 0.0 7,648,507 Spain 16 2 12.5 3.5 1 6.3 2.0 7,699,823 Sweden 18 11 61.1 4.1 5 27.8 4.8 7,080,145 Switzerland 19 13 68.4 4.0 8 42.1 5.5 12,203,297 Taiwan 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 2,361,005 United Kingdom 96 62 64.6 3.4 57 59.4 3.9 9,520,635 United States 251 170 67.7 3.2 100 39.8 3.2 12,023,611 Totals for all 32 countries 1,062 656 61.8 3.6 346 32.6 3.8 $10,612,204 Data from Disclosure/Worldscope Global Database, May 1993 CD-ROM
disk, Bethesda, Maryland: Disclosure, Incorporated AUGUST 1995 / THE CPA JOURNAL
The
CPA Journal is broadly recognized as an outstanding, technical-refereed
publication aimed at public practitioners, management, educators, and
other accounting professionals. It is edited by CPAs for CPAs. Our goal
is to provide CPAs and other accounting professionals with the information
and news to enable them to be successful accountants, managers, and
executives in today's practice environments.
©2009 The New York State Society of CPAs. Legal Notices |
||||
Visit the new cpajournal.com.