Management Accounting Information for Managing and Creating Value 7th Edition Smith Solutions Manual

Management Accounting Information for Managing
and Creating Value 7th Edition Smith Solutions
Manual pdf download
https://testbankdeal.com/product/management-accounting-
information-for-managing-and-creating-value-7th-edition-smith-
solutions-manual/
Download more testbank from https://testbankdeal.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...
Management Accounting Information for Managing and
Creating Value 7th Edition Smith Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/management-accounting-information-
for-managing-and-creating-value-7th-edition-smith-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Operations Management Creating Value Along 7th Edition
Russel Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/operations-management-creating-value-
along-7th-edition-russel-solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com
Operations Management Creating Value Along 7th Edition
Russel Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/operations-management-creating-value-
along-7th-edition-russel-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Campbell Essential Biology with Physiology Global 5th
Edition Simon Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/campbell-essential-biology-with-
physiology-global-5th-edition-simon-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com

Management Information Systems 10th Edition McLeod Test
Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/management-information-systems-10th-
edition-mcleod-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
ETHICS 1st Edition Camp Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/ethics-1st-edition-camp-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Intermediate Algebra for College Students 9th Edition
Angel Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/intermediate-algebra-for-college-
students-9th-edition-angel-solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com
Framework for Marketing Management 6th Edition Kotler Test
Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/framework-for-marketing-
management-6th-edition-kotler-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Juvenile Justice Policies Programs and Practices 3rd
Edition Taylor Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/juvenile-justice-policies-programs-
and-practices-3rd-edition-taylor-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com

Prealgebra 6th Edition Blair Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/prealgebra-6th-edition-blair-
solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com

Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education (Australia) Pty Ltd
IRM t/a Langfield-Smith, Thorne, Smith, Hilton Management Accounting 7e
1
CHAPTER 7
A CLOSER LOOK AT OVERHEAD COSTS
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
7.1 When we refer to manufacturing overhead costs we are describing the indirect manufacturing costs of products.
These are the factory costs that are incurred in producing products but cannot be traced directly to them. They
include all manufacturing costs other than direct material and direct labour, such as the costs of supervision,
power, factory security and so on. From a product costing perspective, we can expand our definition of
overheads to include all product-related costs other than direct costs as managers may require comprehensive
estimates of product costs for making product-related decisions (see Chapter 4). However, as Australian
accounting standard AASB 102 Inventories requires that inventory valuations in external reports of
manufacturing businesses only include manufacturing costs, a distinction is drawn between indirect costs within
the manufacturing area, called manufacturing overhead, and other indirect costs incurred along the value chain,
upstream and downstream, of the manufacturing or production area.
Upstream costs and downstream costs, regardless of whether the entity is a manufacturer or a service provider
include costs incurred before and after the production process, such as research and development, design and
supply costs, marketing, distribution and customer service costs.
The indirect costs of responsibility centres are costs assigned to a unit in an organisation such as a department or
division where a manager is held accountable for performance. Indirect costs cannot be traced directly to the
centre so they need to be assigned instead.
7.2 Cost object: is something that is assigned a separate measure of cost because management need such cost
information; for example, responsibility centres, products, projects and so on. (The various production
departments in a manufacturing firm also provide examples of cost objects. For example, the material handling
cost pool may be allocated across the various production departments that use material handling services. In a
hospital costs may be assigned to reception, a ward, a doctor, operating theatres or intensive care unit (ICU) and
so on.)
Cost pool: a collection of costs that are to be assigned to cost objects. Costs are often pooled because they have
the same cost driver. (An example of a cost pool is all costs related to material handling in a manufacturing
firm.)
Cost allocation base: is some factor or variable that is used to allocate costs in a cost pool to cost objects. (An
example of a cost allocation base may be the weight of materials handled for each production department that
uses material handling services. This base would be used to assign the costs in the material handling cost pool to
the production departments.)
Cost driver: is a factor or activity that causes a cost to be incurred. (From the example above, the allocation base
of weight of materials handled for each production department may be a cost driver depending on its causal
relationship to the costs in the cost pool.)
The difference between cost allocation bases and cost drivers is that cost drivers are allocation bases but not all
allocation bases are cost drivers. Ideally allocation bases should be cost drivers; that is, there should be a cause
and effect relationship between the costs in the cost pool and the allocation base. In practice, some allocation
bases do not have this relationship, or the relationship is imperfect. Under these circumstances the accuracy of
the cost allocations can be questioned.
7.3 As shown in Exhibit 7.2 (Estimating the cost of a cost object), in estimating the cost of a cost object, direct costs
are traced directly to the cost object and indirect costs (those with no direct linkage to the cost object) are
collected into cost pools and assigned to the cost object by means of allocation bases, preferably cost drivers.
Some possible examples of cost objects and their direct and indirect costs for the NGOs involved in the tsunami
relief efforts (described in the ‘Real life - Measuring tsunami recovery costs: an overhead or not?’ on page 276)
follow:

2
Cost objects Direct costs Indirect costs
Programs to deliver
immediate disaster relief
• Campaign and administrative costs
that can be directly traced to
specific program
• Salaries of program designer and
planners
• Salaries of appeal workers
• Salaries of relief workers in
disaster area
• Transport of staff and relief goods
to disaster area
• Accommodation for relief workers
• Technical and logistical consulting
costs
• Food and clean water
• Medicines
• Temporary shelter
• General office and administrative
costs of NGO (depreciation of
office equipment, general
stationery and postage, rent,
cleaning, general accounting and
office staff salaries, bank fees etc)
• Salaries of CEO and top
management
• Legal, insurance and risk
management costs not directly
traceable
• Marketing, advertising, publishing
and other costs for general
awareness and fund raising
campaigns
• Consulting and advocacy activity
costs of seeking change in
government and institutional
policies
• External audit and reporting costs
Projects to:
• rebuild after a disaster
event
• construct additional
infrastructure
• deliver long-term
community development
• Administrative costs that can be
directly traced to specific projects
• Salaries of project designers and
planners
• Salaries of staff involved in project
field work
• Transport of staff and materials to
field
• Accommodation for field staff
• Technical and engineering
consulting costs
• Building and infrastructure
materials
• General office and administrative
costs of NGO (depreciation of
office equipment, general
stationery and postage, rent,
cleaning, general accounting and
office staff salaries, bank fees etc)
• Salaries of CEO and top
management
• Legal, insurance and risk
management costs not directly
traceable
• Marketing, advertising, publishing
and other costs for general
awareness and fund raising
campaigns
• Consulting and advocacy activity
costs of seeking change in
government and institutional
policies
• External audit and reporting costs

3
7.4 A cost allocation base is some factor or variable that allows us to allocate costs in a cost pool to a cost object.
One possible allocation base for assigning advertising costs to the various attractions of a large theme park
would be the number of people patronising the park’s attractions. This would assume that the number of people
attending a certain part of the theme park would be an indication of the advertising resources consumed by each
attraction. Notice that in most cases the sales revenue generated by the various components of the theme park
would not be a viable allocation base since most theme parks have a single admission fee for the entire park.
Note that some people would consider ‘corporate’ advertising of this nature should not be allocated to the
various subunits of the business, as it is very hard to determine a causal cost driver. In activity-based costing
terminology the advertising could be regarded as a facility cost.
7.5 The development of departmental overhead rates involves a two-stage process.
In stage one, overhead costs are assigned to the firm’s production departments. First, overhead costs are
distributed to all departments, including both support and production departments. Second, support department
cost allocation takes place which involves costs being allocated from the support departments to the production
departments. At the end of stage one, all overhead costs have been assigned to the production departments.
In stage two, overhead application occurs as the costs that have been accumulated in the production departments
are applied to the products that pass through the departments using the overhead rate set for each production
department.
7.6 A support department is a unit in an organisation that is not involved directly in producing the organisation’s
goods or services. However, a support department does provide services that enable the organisation’s
production process to take place. Production departments, on the other hand, are units that are directly involved
in producing the organisation’s goods and services.
Examples of ‘production’ departments in a bank may include cheque processing, tellers, loan departments and so
on. Examples of support departments in a restaurant chain may include washing dishes (either manual or
stacking and unstacking dishwashers), cleaning, ordering/buying (some franchises rely on ordering from a
central unit and some require purchasing at the local market), bookings desk, head office, laundry and
accounting.
7.7 Activity-based costing can be used to assign manufacturing overhead costs to products in two stages. In the first
stage overhead costs are assigned to activity cost pools (that is, activities). In the second stage, activity costs are
assigned from the activities to products in proportion to the products' consumption of each activity, measured by
the amount of activity driver consumed. In traditional costing systems, when a two-stage allocation process is
used, the first stage is to assign overhead costs to production departments and the second stage is to assign the
overhead costs from the production departments to products in proportion to the products' consumption of the
departmental overhead cost drivers.
7.8 Using departmental overhead rates instead of a single plantwide overhead rate can improve the accuracy of
product cost information. The allocation bases used for each department are likely to be more realistic in
representing the relationship between overhead costs and the product, compared to using just one plantwide rate.
However, using departmental overhead rates requires the distribution of overhead costs to departments, the
allocation of support department costs to production departments and the collection of cost driver data by
production departments. While this approach usually provides more useful information than the single cost pool
approach, it is more expensive to operate and still can provide misleading information. A problem with this
approach is that costs with different behaviour patterns are added together before allocation to the product. It is
difficult to identify a realistic cost driver for a cost pool that includes setup costs, space costs and indirect
material costs, for example.
Using activity-based costing should improve the accuracy of cost information. Allocating costs to activities
rather than departments enables the identification of even more appropriate allocation bases. For example ABC
uses both volume and non-volume based cost drivers as allocation bases and attempts to aggregate costs that
have similar behaviour patterns. Again, however, there is an additional cost in analysing costs and cost drivers at
an activity level rather than at a department level.

4
7.9 A cost driver is an activity or factor that causes costs to be incurred. A volume-based cost driver is a cost driver
that is a measure of or proxy for the volume of production. An assumption underlying the use of a volume-based
cost driver is that costs are caused, or driven, by the volume of production. Examples include direct labour
hours, machine hours and direct material volume.
Non-volume based cost drivers are cost drivers that are not directly related to the number of units produced. For
example in manufacturing the set up costs are not driven directly by the units of output since each batch can vary
in volume. In a bank, non-volume based costs can include human resource management (driven by staff
numbers), cleaning (driven by floor space or room numbers), and IT servicing (possibly driven by the number of
computers).
7.10 Labour cost is a commonly used base for allocating overhead costs to cost objects including projects such as
those undertaken by FFA. Although such projects may be self funded by the member countries they result in
additional overhead costs being incurred by the FFA. As these overhead costs cannot be specifically traced cost-
effectively to the individual projects, an appropriate allocation base is needed to allocate them to the individual
projects to avoid cross-subsidisation of projects from member contributions and donations.
It is likely that there is some relationship between the level of salary costs for the projects and the increase in
overhead costs incurred by the FFA (as larger, higher cost projects are likely to require more support from FFA),
though the correlation is unlikely to be perfect. In the absence of a stronger logical connection and a more
practical, cost effective allocation base the use of salary costs as the allocation base may be reasonable.
However, it is not surprising that the member countries questioned and sought independent advice on the
accountability of the seemingly high overhead recovery rate of 66% of salary costs, because to them the
overhead recovery is an uncontrollable cost.
7.11 The primary benefit of using a predetermined overhead rate instead of an actual overhead rate is to provide
timely information for decision making, planning and control. Also the predetermined rate removes fluctuations
inherent in monthly actual overhead rates. While the use of actual overhead rates removes the need to account
for over- or under-allocated overhead, this is because it relies on data that are not known until after the event, so
it cannot be used in a timely fashion. Notice that in both approaches, it is necessary to calculate an overhead rate,
as overhead costs cannot be traced directly to products.
7.12 The denominator volume is the measure of cost driver volume used to calculate the manufacturing overhead
rate. The most common measure is the budgeted volume of cost driver for the coming year. Theoretical capacity
is the maximum level of production that the plant can run at, without ever stopping. Practical capacity assumes
the business operates at the maximum level that its resources allow under normal, efficient operating conditions.
Product costs will be higher using practical capacity, as the denominator measure of cost driver volume will be
lower, resulting in higher overhead rates. Using theoretical capacity as the denominator will result in lower
overhead rates and product costs, but there will be higher levels of underapplied overhead.
7.13 Management accountants allocate indirect costs to responsibility centres to help managers understand the effects
of their decisions, to encourage particular patterns of resource usage and to support the product costing system.
For example production departments may source services from support departments and where these services are
supplied for ‘free’ there may be a tendency to over-consume them. Where they are charged to departments, the
departmental managers are held responsible for these costs and need to be careful about the amount of these
services they consume. Also, where departmental overhead rates are used for product costing, it is necessary to
allocate the costs of support departments to production departments, to calculate departmental overhead rates for
the production departments.
The problems encountered in allocating a proportion of costs of the Prime Infrastructure Group (which changed
its name to Babcock and Brown Infrastructure on 1 July 2005) to its responsibility centre of Dalrymple Bay Coal
Terminal (DBCT) related to the disentanglement of overheads associated with DBCT’s operations from the costs
of other activities within the Prime group. The amount of overhead allocated by Prime to DBCT affected the
overhead cost per loaded tonne sought to be recovered by DBCT in the total price per loaded tonne of coal
charged to terminal users. The terminal users have little option but to use the terminal facility because of its
monopolistic nature. The competition authority, to ensure fair and reasonable access for terminal users, needed
to approve the terms and conditions of terminal access. It sought an independent review of Prime’s method of
allocating overhead to DBCT, which found that Prime had not reliably estimated the amount of overhead
relating to DBCT. This ‘Real life’ example illustrates the impact that overhead cost allocation choices can have,
not only on product costs and product prices, but also industry competitiveness.

5
7.14 Budgeted support department costs should be allocated rather than actual support department costs. If actual
costs were allocated, the activities of the department that provides the services could compromise the results of
the department that uses these services as well as their ability to plan activities. The incentive for cost control in
the department that provides the services may be reduced if they just transfer those excesses to the next
department. The allocation on the basis of budgeted figures highlights the good or poor results in the sourcing
department.
7.15 Under the direct method of support department cost allocation, all support department costs are allocated
directly to the production departments, and none of these costs are allocated to other support departments. Under
the step-down method, a sequence is first established for allocation of support department costs. Then the costs
incurred in the first support department in the sequence are allocated among all other departments that follow in
the sequence, including other support departments. The method proceeds in a similar fashion through the
sequence of support departments, never allocating back to a support department that has had its costs allocated.
Under the reciprocal services method, a system of simultaneous equations is established to reflect the reciprocal
provision of services among support departments. Then, all of the support departments’ costs are allocated
among all of the departments that use the various support departments’ output of services. The reciprocal
services method of support department cost allocation is the only method that fully accounts for the reciprocal
provision of services among departments.
7.16 As stated in the previous answer, under the reciprocal services method all of the support departments’ costs are
allocated among all of the departments that use the various support departments’ output of services. It is the only
method that fully accounts for the reciprocal provision of services among departments. However, this degree of
accuracy may not be necessary for the purpose and sometimes makes very little difference to the resulting
costings. The degree of inaccuracy of the reciprocal and step down methods depends on the amount of overhead
in each cost pool and the level of support provided between departments. As the method of allocating support
department costs becomes more detailed and sophisticated the cost of maintaining the system increases.
7.17 The term reciprocal services refers to two or more support departments providing support services to each other.
In a university, for example, the IT department provides support services to the human resource (HR)
department but the human resource department also provides HR support to the IT department. In fact IT gives
support to all other departments (e.g maintenance, grounds, student administration, faculty administration,
library, security) and receives support from many of them (maintenance of facilities, HR, security).
7.18 The contribution margin statement is used to highlight the separation of variable and fixed costs. The total
contribution margin is equal to sales revenue less the variable cost of goods sold (sometimes called the variable
manufacturing expenses) and the variable selling and administrative expenses. The fixed expenses deducted
below the contribution margin include both fixed manufacturing overhead and fixed selling and administrative
expenses.
In the absorption costing income statement the cost of goods sold expensed, for each month, includes variable
manufacturing costs and the predetermined fixed manufacturing overhead cost applied to products sold. The
expenses deducted after that are the selling and administrative expenses, which include both fixed and variable
components.
7.19 Both absorption and variable costing systems assign direct material, direct labour and variable manufacturing
overhead costs to products in exactly the same way, but they differ over their treatment of fixed manufacturing
overhead. Absorption costing includes fixed manufacturing overhead as a part of product cost. Variable costing
excludes fixed manufacturing overhead from product cost and expenses it in the period in which it is incurred.
The key distinction between variable and absorption costing is the timing of fixed manufacturing overhead
becoming an expense. Eventually, fixed overhead is expensed under both product costing systems. Under
variable costing, fixed overhead is expensed immediately, when it is incurred. Under absorption costing, fixed
overhead is inventoried and not expensed until the accounting period during which the manufactured goods are
sold.

6
7.20 Variable product costs are particularly useful for short-term decisions, such as whether to make or buy a
component, and pricing—especially when variable selling and administrative costs are included. The fixed costs
will be incurred anyway and in the short term they should be disregarded. In making these decisions, the variable
costs provide a good measure of the differential costs that need to be assessed. The information needed for short-
term decision making is discussed in Chapter 19.
Under variable costing, profit is a function of sales. The classification of costs as fixed or variable makes it
simple to project the effects that changes in sales have on profit. Managers find this useful for decision making.
Also, cost volume profit analysis (which we discuss in Chapter 18) requires a variable costing format.
Planned costs must take account of cost behaviour if they are to provide a reliable basis for control. In addition,
the link between sales and profit performance, under variable costing, ensures a performance measure that
managers understand easily.
Fixed costs are an important part of the costs of a business, especially in the modern manufacturing environment.
Variable costing provides a useful perspective of the impact that fixed costs have on profits by bringing them
together and highlighting them, instead of having them scattered throughout the statement.
Absorption product costs include unitised fixed overhead, which can result in suboptimal decisions, especially as
fixed costs are not differential costs in the short term. However, in the modern business environment, with a high
level of fixed overhead, a relatively small percentage of manufacturing costs may be assigned to products under
variable costing. Also, in the longer term a business must cover its fixed costs too, and many managers prefer to
use absorption cost when they make cost-based pricing decisions. They argue that fixed manufacturing overhead
is a necessary cost incurred in the production process. When fixed costs are omitted, the cost of the product is
understated.

7
SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES
Exercise 7.21 (20 minutes) Predetermined overhead rates for various cost drivers:
manufacturer
NOTE: Budgeted sales revenue, although given in the exercise, is irrelevant to the solution.
1 Predetermined overhead rate =
driver
cost
of
level
budgeted
overhead
ing
manufactur
budgeted
(a) $546 000
15 000 machine hours
= $36.40 per machine hour
(b) $546 000
30 000 direct labour hours
= $18.20 per direct labour hour
(c) $546 000
$630 000*
= $0.867 per direct labour dollar or 86.7%
of direct labour cost
*Budgeted direct labour cost = 30 000 hours x $21
Actual overhead rate = actual manufacturing overhead
actual level of cost driver
(a) $510 000
16 500 machine hours
(b) $510 000
= $18.89 per direct-labour hour
(c) $510 000
$607 500*
= $0.84 per direct labour dollar or 84%
of direct labour cost
*Actual direct-labour cost = 27 000 hours x $22.50
2 Denyer Ltd will not know the data for actual costs and cost drivers until the end of the year. For timely decision
making it is necessary to have estimates and use predetermined rates.
Exercise 7.22 (20 minutes) Predetermined plantwide overhead rate: printing firm
budgeted manufacturing overhead
budgeted level of cost driver
$546 000
15000 machine hours
2 Business cards 600  $36.40 = $21 840
Wedding invitations 300  $36.40 = $10 920
Promotion flyers 200  $36.40 = $7280
3 Actual
manufacturing
overhead
−
Applied
manufacturing
overhead
=
Overapplied or underapplied
overhead
$51 000 − (1100)($36.40) = $10 960 underapplied

8
Exercise 7.23 (30 minutes) Predetermined plantwide overhead rate; alternative cost drivers
budgeted level of cost driver
(a)
$546 000
(b) $546 000 = $1.30 per direct labour dollar or
$420 000 130 of direct labour cost
2 (a) Business cards 800 direct labour hours  $18.20 = $14 560
Wedding invitations 600 direct labour hours  $18.20 = $10 920
Promotion flyers 400 direct labour hours  $18.20 = $7280
(b) Business cards (800 direct labour hours)($22.50)  1.30 = $23 400
Wedding invitations (600 direct labour hours)($22.50)  1.30 = $17 550
Promotion flyers (400 direct labour hours)($22.50)  1.30 = $11 700
3 Actual
manufacturing
overhead
−
Applied
manufacturing
overhead
=
Overapplied or underapplied
overhead
(a) $51 000 − (1800)($18 20) = $18 240 underapplied overhead
(b) $51 000 – (1800)($22.50)(1.30)† = $1650 overapplied overhead
† Actual direct labour cost = 1800  $22.50
In hindsight, direct labour dollars seems the most appropriate cost driver, as it results in the lowest level of
underapplied/overapplied overhead. It therefore appears to better represent the behaviour of overhead costs.
However, it is difficult to make this judgment based on just one month’s data.
Exercise 7.24 (10 minutes) Departmental overhead rates: manufacturer
Applied manufacturing overhead per deluxe saddle and accessory set:
Tanning Department 110 m2
 $8 $ 880
Assembly Department 4 machine hours  $22 88
Saddle Department 45 direct labour hours  $10 450
$1418
Exercise 7.25 (15 minutes) Volume-based cost driver versus ABC: manufacturer
1 Material handling cost per mirror:
$180000
60
( ) 500
( )+ 60
( ) 500
( )
é
ë ù
û*
´ 500 = $1500
* The total number of direct labour hours.
An alternative calculation, since both types of product use the same amount of the cost driver, is the
following:
$180 000
120*
= $1500
* The total number of units (of both types) produced.

9
2 Material handling cost per lens = $1500. The analysis is identical to that given for requirement 1.
3 Material handling cost per mirror:
$180 000
8 + 32
( )
*
´8
60
= $600
* The total number of material moves.
4 Material handling cost per lens:
$180 000
8 + 32
( )
*
´ 32
60
= $2400
* The number of material moves for the lens product line.
Exercise 7.26 (20 minutes) Normal costing; alternative denominator volumes: engineering
firm
1 Practical capacity will be greater than the actual volume of production. Overhead will be underapplied at the end
of the coming year. Job costs and tender quotes will be lower than their actual costs because the overhead cost
will be understated.
2 A change from practical capacity to the budgeted volume will increase the overhead rate and, therefore, increase
job costs and tender quotes. This will make it more difficult to win tenders.
3 If normal volume were used, by the end of this year actual production will be lower than the normal volume, as
the company is expected to be in the ‘trough’ of its normal business cycle. Overhead would be underapplied, but
not by as much as it would have been if practical capacity had been used as the denominator volume. Next year
the company will be in the peak of its two-year cycle and, if normal volume is used as the denominator volume,
overhead will be overapplied. Over the two-year cycle, the underapplied and overapplied overhead should even
out, assuming that actual production behaves as expected over its normal cycle.
Job costs and tender quotes under normal volume will be understated this year and overstated next year,
compared to their actual cost. The average cost over the two years should approximate the actual production
cost.
Exercise 7.27 (10 minutes) Direct method of support department cost allocation: bank
Direct customer service departments using services
Deposit Loan
Provider of service
Cost to be
allocated Proportion Amount Proportion Amount
Human Resources $ 720 000 (50/80) $ 450 000 (30/80) $270 000
Computing 1 200 000 (60/80) 900 000 (20/80) 300 000
Total $ 1 920 000 $1 350 000 $570 000
Grand total $1 920 000

10
Exercise 7.28 (15 minutes) Step-down method of support department cost allocation: bank
Human
resources Computing
Direct customer service departments
using services
Deposit Loan
Costs prior to allocation $720 000 $1 200 000
Allocation of Human Resources
Department costs $720 000 144 000 (2/10) $360 000 (5/10) $216 000 (3/10)
Allocation of Computing
Department costs $1 344 000 1 008 000 (60/80) 336 000 (20/80)
Total costs allocated to each
department $1 368 000 $552 000
Total cost allocated to direct
customer service departments
$ 1 920 000

11
Exercise 7.29 (25 minutes) Reciprocal services method of support department cost
allocation: bank
First, specify equations to express the relationships between the support departments.
Notation: H denotes the total cost of Human Resources
C denotes the total cost of Computing
Equations: H = 720 000 + 0.20C (1)
C = 1 200 000 + 0.20H (2)
Solution of equations: Substitute from equation (2) into equation (1).
H = 720 000 + 0.20(1 200 000 + 0.20H)
= 720 000 + 240 000 +0 .04H
0 .96H = 960 000
H = 1 000 000
Substitute the value of H into equation (2).
C = 1 200 000 + 0.20(1 000 000)
C = 1 400 000
Next, use the calculated total allocation figures in the cost allocation using the reciprocal services method:
Support departments Direct customer service departments
Human Resources Computing Deposit Loan
Traceable costs $720 000 $1 200 000
Allocation of Human
Resources Department costs (1 000 000) 200 000(0.2) $500 000(0.5) $300 000(0.3)
Allocation of Computing
Department costs 280 000(0.2) (1 400 000) 840 000(0.6) 280 000(0.2)
Total cost allocated to each
direct customer service
department $1 340 000 $580 000
Total costs allocated
$1 920 000
Exercise 7.30 (20 minutes) (appendix) Variable and absorption costing
1 Porter Ltd.
Income statement under absorption costing
Year ended 31 December
Sales revenue (36 000 units at $45/unit) $1 620 000
Less: Cost of goods sold (36 000  $35/unit)* 1 260 000
Gross margin 360 000
Less: Selling and administrative expenses:
Variable $108 000
Fixed 30 000
138 000
Net profit $222 000

12
2
PorterLtd
Contribution margin statement under variable costing
Year ended 31 December
Sales revenue (36 000 units at $45/unit) $1 620 000
Less: Variable expenses:
Variable manufacturing costs
(36 000  $27/unit) $972 000
Variable selling & administrative costs 108 000
1 080 000
Contribution margin 540 000
Less: Fixed expenses
Fixed manufacturing overhead $300 000
Fixed selling and administrative expenses 30 000
330 000
Net profit $ 210 000
* Assuming that the production of 25 000 units equalled the normal capacity, the fixed manufacturing overhead per unit is
$8 ($300 000/37 500 units).
3 (a) The absorption costing profit is higher because 1500 units produced are carried forward as finished goods
inventory. Each unit carries forward a cost of $8 for manufacturing overhead that is expensed under
variable costing. Therefore using the absorption costing method the costs in the income statement are
$12 000 lower than when using the contribution margin approach, where total fixed costs are expensed as
period costs.
(b) The short cut method is based on the change in closing inventory, which represents costs incurred in the
current period which will be released against future revenue. Where production is greater than sales (as in
this case) the higher value of closing inventory deducted from the cost of goods available for sale shows a
lower cost of goods sold— and, therefore, a higher gross profit. The calculation for this is shown below.
Increase (decrease)
in units in inventory

fixed manufacturing cost
per unit
= difference in profit
1500 units  $8 = $12 000 more under
absorption costing

13
SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS
Problem 7.31 (30 minutes) Plantwide and departmental overhead rates: manufacturer
Instructors please note before setting this problem: The actual overhead of $300 000 is for the whole plant (that is,
Fabrication plus Assembly Departments).
1 Total budgeted overhead = $270 000 + $135 000 = $405 000
Budgeted direct labour hours = 22 500 + 90 000 = 112 500
Predetermined overhead rate = $405 000/112 500 = $3.60 per direct labour hour
2 Laser:
31 500 hours  $3.60 = $113 400 (overhead)
[$113 400 + $90 000 (prime costs)]/11 250 units = $18.08 per unit
Inkjet:
93 000 hours  $3.60 = $334 800 (overhead)
[334 800 + $675 000 (prime costs)]/112 500 units = $8.98 per unit (rounded)
3 Departmental overhead rates:
Fabrication = $270 000/45 000 = $6 per machine hour
Assembly = $135 000/90 000 = $1.50 per direct labour hour
4 Laser:
Applied overhead = (15 000  $6) + (30 000  $1.50) = $135 000
Cost per unit = (135 000 + 90 000)/11 250 = $20 per unit
Inkjet:
Applied overhead = (30 000  $6) + (72 000  1.50) = $288 000
Cost per unit = $(288 000 + 675 000)/112 500 = $8.56 per unit
5 (a) Plantwide overhead rate:
Applied overhead (124 500 labour hours  $3.60) $448 200
Actual overhead 450 000
Underapplied overhead $1 800
(b) Departmental overhead rates:
Applied overhead (45 000 machine hours  $6) $270 000 in Fabrication
Applied overhead (102 000 labour hours  $1.50) $153 000 in Assembly
Total applied overhead $423 000
Actual overhead 450 000
Underapplied overhead $ 27 000
6 One would expect the departmental overhead rates to be the best approach. However, in this case the plantwide
rate results in less underapplied/overapplied overhead. Perhaps direct labour hours is a better cost driver for
‘Fabrication’ than machine hours. As the question does not identify the actual overhead costs for each
department separately, it is not possible to identify which department contributes most to the underapplied
overhead and, therefore, assess the appropriateness of each department’s cost driver.

14
Problem 7.32 (25 minutes) Predetermined plantwide overhead rate; different time periods;
pricing: manufacturer
1 (a)
Estimated
manufacturing
overhead
Estimated direct
labour hours
(DLHs)
Quarterly
predetermined
overhead rate
(per DLH)
First quarter $200 000 25 000 $8.00
Second quarter 160 000 16 000 $10.00
Third quarter 100 000 12 500 $8.00
Fourth quarter 140 000 14 000 $10.00
$600 000 67 500
(b) (i) & (ii) Part A200 produced January April
Direct labour rate per hour $30.00 $30.00
Number of DLHs per unit 20 20
Overhead rate per DLH $8 $10
Direct material 200 $200
Direct labour 600 $600
Overhead 160 $200
$960 $1 000
2 (a) January ($960 x 1.10) $1056
(b) April ($1000 x 1.10) $1100
3
Estimated
manufacturing
overhead
Estimated direct
labour hours
(DLHs)
Quarterly
predetermined
overhead rate
(per DLH)
First quarter $200 000 25 000
Second quarter 160 000 16 000
Third quarter 100 000 12 500
Fourth quarter 140 000 14 000
Totals $600 000 67 500 $8.89 (rounded)
4 (a) & (b) Part A200 produced January April
Direct material $200.00 $200.00
Direct labour 600.00 600.00
Overhead ( 20 DLH x overhead
rate of $8.89 per DLH) 177.80 177.80
$977.80 $977.80

15
5
Price is cost plus 10% markup
i.e. $977.80 x 1.10 $1075.58
6
The annual rate is preferred, as it averages out (that is, normalises) the effects of fluctuations in overhead costs and
cost driver volumes over the year. Notice that with quarterly overhead rates, the firm may underprice its product in
January and overprice it in April. Note also that an increase in prices in two quarters of the year could further decrease
demand for the product, which would then further increase its cost and price per unit.

16
Problem 7.33 (45 minutes) Departmental overhead rates and activity-based costing:
manufacturer
1 (a) Former product costing system: traditional system based on a single volume-related cost driver.
(b) Current product costing system: departmental overhead rates based on different cost drivers.
Support Department
Costs Allocation

17
(c) Contemplated product costing system: activity-based costing.
2 Suggested activity cost pools and activity drivers are shown in 1 (c) above.
Overhead costs are assigned to activity cost pools
associated with significant activities
Overhead
costs
assigned to
activities.

18
Problem 7.34 (50 minutes) Plantwide versus departmental overhead rates; product pricing:
manufacturer
1 Schedule of budgeted overhead costs:
Department A Department B
Variable overhead
A 20 000 direct labour hours  $32........................................ $640 000
B 20 000 direct labour hours  $8......................................... $160 000
Fixed overhead ............................................................................... 400 000 400 000
Total overhead................................................................................ $1 040 000 $560 000
Grand total of budgeted overhead (A + B): $1 600 000
Predetermined overhead rate =
total budgeted overhead
total budgeted direct labour hours
=
$1 600 000
40 000
= $40 per hour
2 Product prices:
Basic
system
Advanced
system
Total cost...................................................................................... $2 200 $3 000
Mark-up, 10% of cost................................................................... 220 300
Price.............................................................................................. $2 420 $3 300
Department A Department B
Budgeted overhead (from requirement 1)..................................... $1 040 000 $560 000
Budgeted direct-labour hours ....................................................... 20 000 20 000
Predetermined overhead rates....................................................... $1 040 000
20 000 DLHrs
$560 000
20 000 DLHrs
$52 per $28 per
direct labour hour direct labour hour

19
4 Revised product costs:
Basic system Advanced system
Direct material.............................................................................. $800 $1600
Direct labour................................................................................. 600 600
Manufacturing overhead:
Department A:
Basic system 5 x $52 ...................................................... 260
Advanced system 15 x $52 ............................................. 780
Department B:
Basic system 15 x $28 .................................................... 420
Advanced system 5 x $28 ................................................ _ ____ 140
Total $2 080 $3 120
5 Revised product prices:
Total cost...................................................................................... $2 080 $3 120
Mark-up, 10% of cost................................................................... 208 312
Price .......................................................................................... $2 288 $3 432
6 CONSTELLATION TELECOMMMUNICATIONS LTD
Memorandum
Date: Today
To: President, Constellation Telecommunications Ltd
From: I M Student
Subject: Departmental overhead rates
Until now the company has used a single, plantwide overhead rate in calculating product costs. This approach resulted
in a product cost of $2200 for the basic system and a cost of $3000 for the advanced system. Under the company’s
pricing policy of adding a 10 per cent mark-up, this yielded prices of $2420 for the basic system and $3300 for the
advanced system.
When departmental overhead rates are calculated, it is apparent that the two production departments have very different
cost structures. Department A is a relatively expensive department to operate, while Department B is less costly. It is
important to recognise the different rates of cost incurrence in the two departments, because our two products require
different amounts of time in the two departments. The basic system spends most of its time in Department B, the
inexpensive department. The advanced system spends most of its time in Department A, the more expensive
department. Thus, using departmental overhead rates shows that the basic system costs less than we had previously
realised; the advanced system costs more. The revised product costs are $2080 and $3120 for the basic and advanced
systems, respectively. With a 10 per cent mark-up, these revised product costs yield prices of $2288 for the basic
system and $3432 for the advanced system. We have been overpricing the basic system and underpricing the advanced
system.
I recommend that the company switch to a product costing system that incorporates departmental overhead rates.

20
Problem 7.35 (30 minutes) Activity-based costing calculations
1 Cost rates per unit of each cost driver:
(a)
Activity
(b)
Activity
cost pool
(c)
Quantity of
cost driver
(b)  (c)
Cost rate per unit
of cost driver
Machine setup................. $200 000 200 setups $1 000 per setup
Material receiving........... 120 000 80 000 kg $1.50 per kg
Inspection........................ 160 000 1 600 inspections $100 per inspection
Machinery-related........... 840 000 60 000 machine hours $14 per machine hour
Engineering..................... 280 000 7 000 engineering hours $40 per engineering hour
Total overhead ................ $1 600 000
2 Overhead assigned to each product line:
Activity
Overhead assigned to
Basic system line
Overhead assigned to
Advanced system line
Machine setup..........................
$ 50 000 (50 setups  $1000) $150 000 (150 setups  $1000)
Material receiving....................
45 000 (30 000 kg  $1.50) 75 000 (50 000 kg  $1.50)
Inspection.................................
70 000 (700 inspections  $100) 90 000 (900 inspections  $100)
Machinery-related....................
280 000 (20 000 machine hrs  $14) 560 000 (40 000 machine hrs  $14)
Engineering..............................
120 000 (3 000 eng. hrs  $40) 160 000 (4 000 eng. hrs  $40)
Total overhead .........................
$565 000 1 035 000
3 Overhead assigned per unit of each type of printer:
Basic system................................................................................ $565 ($565 000  1000 units)
Advanced system......................................................................... $1035 ($1 035 000  1000 units)
4 Comparison of total product cost assigned to each product under three alternative product costing systems:
Plantwide overhead rate*....................................................... $2 200 $3 000
Departmental overhead rate** ............................................... 2 080 3 120
Activity-based costing†
.......................................................... 1 965 3 235
* From the data given in the preceding problem.
** From the solution to the preceding problem.
†
The assigned overhead as calculated in requirement 3 above, plus the direct material and direct labour costs given in
the data for the preceding problem:
Basic system ........................................................................ $1965 = $1400 + $565
Advanced system................................................................. $3235 = $2200 + $1035

21
Problem 7.36 (45 minutes) Plantwide versus departmental overhead rates; actual and
normal costing: manufacturer
budgeted cost driver
(a) Plantwide overhead rate based
on direct labour hours =
$180 000
45000
= $4 per direct labour hour
Manufacturing overhead cost of A Frame = 5  $4
= $20
(b) Plantwide overhead rate based
on machine hours = $180 000
120 000 hours
Manufacturing overhead cost of A Frame = 6.5  $1.50
= $9.75
(c) (i) Cutting Department overhead rate
based on direct labour hours = $60 000
30 000 hours
= $2 per direct labour hour
(ii) Welding Department overhead
rate based on machine hours = $120 000
96 000 hours
Manufacturing overhead cost
of ‘A Frame’ = (4 DL hours  $2) + (4 machine hours  $1.25)
= $13.00
The overhead cost based on departmental rates is likely to be most accurate as it recognises that different cost
drivers cause the overhead costs in each department, and the method specifically recognises the A Frame’s
consumption of these cost drivers.
2 Actual manufacturing overhead rates Cutting Welding
Actual overhead $54 000 $108 000
Actual cost driver 29 400 DL hours 90 000 Machine hours
Actual overhead rates $1.84/DL hour $1.20/Machine hour
(rounded)
Overhead cost of A Frame = (4 DL hours  $1.84) + (4 Machine hours  $1.20) = $12.16
The actual manufacturing overhead costs incurred are indirect costs that cannot be assigned to products, such as
the A Frame, unless cost drivers and overhead rates are used.

22
3 The estimate of overhead costs based on actual departmental rates is most accurate as it reflects the actual costs
incurred. However, this information would not be timely, as actual overhead rates could not be calculated until
after the end of the year.
PROBLEM 7.37 (60 minutes) Overhead application using a predetermined overhead rate;
practical capacity versus normal volume: manufacturer
1 (a) (i) Predetermined overhead rate at practical capacity:
Budgeted manufacturing overhead
Budgeted direct labour hours
at practical capacity
=
000
135
*
000
026
$1
= $7.60/direct labour hour
* ($6 x 135 000) + 216 000 = $1 026 000
(ii) Predetermined overhead rate at normal volume:
Budgeted manufacturing overhead
Budgeted direct labour hours
at normal volume
=
000
120
*
000
$936
* $720 000 + 216 000 = $936 000
(b) Cost of Job 77
Overhead rate based on:
Practical capacity Normal capacity
Cost in beginning work in process inventory $54 000 $54 000
Direct material 45 000 45 000
Direct labour (2600 hours  $20.00 per hour)* 52 000 52 000
Applied manufacturing overhead
(2600 hours  $7.60 per hour) practical 19 760
(2600 hours  $7.80 per hour) normal 20 280
Total cost $170 760 $171 280
* Direct labour rate =
direct labour wages
direct labour hours
=
000
8
000
$160
= $20.00 per hour

23
(c) Manufacturing overhead applied to Job 79:
Practical capacity:
Direct labour hours  predetermined overhead rate
= 2400 hours  $7.60 per hour
= $18 240
Normal volume:
Direct labour hours  predetermined overhead rate
= 2400 hours  $7.80 per hour
= $18 720
2 Practical capacity rate: Total manufacturing overhead applied during November.
Total direct labour hours  predetermined overhead rate
= 8000  $7.60
= $60 800
Normal volume rate: Total manufacturing overhead applied during November:
Total direct labour hours  predetermined overhead rate
= 8000 hours  $7.80
= $62 400
3 (a) Actual manufacturing overhead incurred during November:
Indirect labour wages $20 000
Supervisory salaries 12 000
Indirect material (supplies) 12 000
Production equipment costs 8 100
Building occupancy costs, factory facilities 8 400
Total $60 500
(b) Overapplied overhead for November, practical capacity rate:
Applied manufacturing overhead – Actual manufacturing overhead
= $60 800 – $60 500
= $300 overapplied
Overapplied overhead for November, normal volume rate:
Applied manufacturing overhead – Actual manufacturing overhead
= $62 400 – $60 500
= $1900 overapplied
The practical and normal volume overhead rates were based on a budgeted monthly volume of 11 250 hours
(135 000 hours/12 months) and 10 000 hours (120 000 hours/12 months) respectively. The actual volume was
only 8 000 hours; thus we would expect overhead to be underapplied, all else being equal. However, whether
overhead is under or overapplied also depends on the behaviour of the actual overhead costs throughout the year
as well as the behaviour of the cost driver, direct labour hours. In this case the actual overhead costs incurred
during the month of November were significantly less than one twelfth of the year’s budgeted manufacturing
overhead of $1 026 000 ($85 500) at practical capacity volume and $936 000 ($78 000) at normal volume. This
situation may signal that further investigation of the costing records is required. The overapplied overhead is less
using the practical capacity rate, because the rate is 20 cents less per hour being based on an extra 15 000 direct
labour hours above the normal volume level.

24
4 As practical capacity is unlikely to be achieved at all times throughout the year, using the practical capacity rate
is likely to result in some underapplied overhead and therefore understated product cost.
Normal volumes are average over the normal business cycle, which may span two to three years, or longer.
Overhead will be underapplied, and products undercosted, in years when the business operates below the normal
volume and vice versa.
Moreover, both these overhead rates assume that manufacturing overhead is volume driven. The overhead at
HHCL comprises both fixed and variable overhead costs. Indeed in most businesses there are likely to be
significant levels of non-volume driven (that is, fixed) overheads. Under these circumstances neither of these
conventional overhead rates will result in accurate product costs.
PROBLEM 7.38 (40 minutes) Support department cost allocation: manufacturer
1 Direct method:
Production department
Machining Finishing
Provider of service
Cost to be
HR $250 000 (4/9) $111 111* (5/9) $138 889*
Maintenance 230 000 (35/75) 107 333* (40/75) 122 667*
Design 350 000 (45/60) 262 500 (15/60) 87 500
Total support department costs
allocated $480 944 $349 056
Overhead costs traceable to
production departments 800 000 400 000
Total overhead cost $1 280 944 $749 056
Budgeted machine hours (MH) for
Machining Department 30 000
Budgeted direct labour hours (DLH)
for Finishing Department 10 000
Overhead rate per hour (total
overhead ÷ MH and DLH) $42.70* $74.91*
* Rounded
2 Sequence for step-down method:
1st: HR (serves 2 other service departments)
2nd: Maintenance (serves 1 other service department)
3rd: Design (serves no other service departments)

25
3 Step-down method:
Service departments Production departments
HR Maintenance Design Machining Finishing
Costs prior to
allocation $250 000 $230 000 $350 000
Allocation of HR
Department costs $250 000 12 500 (5/100) 12 500 (5/100) $100 000 (40/100) $125 000 (50/100)
Allocation of
Maintenance
Department costs 242 500 15 156* (5/80) 106 094* (35/80) 121 250 (40/80)
Allocation of Design
Department costs 377 656 283 242 (45/60) 94 414 (15/60)
Total cost allocated to
each department 489 336 340 664
Overhead costs traceable to production departments 800 000 400 000
Total overhead cost 1 289 336 740 664
Budgeted machine hours (MH) for Machining Department 30 000
Budgeted direct labour hours (DLH) for Finishing Department 10 000
Overhead rate per hour (total overhead ÷ MH and DLH)
* Rounded
$42.98* $74.07*
PROBLEM 7.39 (40 minutes) Support department cost allocation; departmental overhead
rates; product costing: manufacturer
1 (a) Direct method:
Production Department
Moulding Assembly
Provider of service
Cost to be
Repair $96 000 (1/9) $10 667* (8/9) $85 333*
Engineering 500 000 (7/8) 437 500 (1/8) 62 500
Total support department costs
allocated $448 167 $147 833
Total overhead cost $848 167 $787 833
Direct hours:
DMH (20  2000) 40 000
DLH (80  2000) 160 000
Overhead rate per hour (total
overhead ÷ DH) $21.20* $4.92*
Check on allocation procedure:
Support department costs allocated to Moulding $448 167
Support department costs allocated to Assembly 147 833
Total costs to be allocated ($48 000 + $250 000)
* Rounded
$596 000

26
(b) The overhead cost will be (3  $21.20) + (5  4.92) = $88.20
2 (a) Step-down method:
Support departments Production departments
Repair Engineering Moulding Assembly
Costs prior to allocation $96 000 $500 000
Allocation of Repair
Department costs 96 000 9 600(1/10) $9 600(1/10) $76 800(8/10)
Allocation of Engineering
Department costs 509 600 445 900(7/8) 63 700(1/8)
Total support department
cost allocated $455 500 $140 500
Direct labour hours (DH):
DLH (20  2000) 40 000
DMH (80  2000) 160 000
Overhead rate per hour
(total overhead ÷ DH) $21.39* $4.88*
Total costs allocated ($48 000 + $250 000) $596 000
* Rounded
(b) The overhead cost will be (3  $21.39) + (5  4.88) = $88.57

27
PROBLEM 7.40 (30 minutes) Reciprocal service method; departmental overhead rates;
product costing: manufacturer
1 (a) Reciprocal services method:
Equations:
R = 96 000 + 0.2E
E = 500 000 + 0.1R
Where:
R denotes the total cost of the Repair Department
E denotes the total cost of the Engineering Department
Solution of equations:
R = 96 000 + 0.2 (500 000 + 0.1R)
R = 96 000 + 100 000 + 0.02R
0.98R = 196 000
R = 200 000
E = 500 000 + 0.1 (200 000)
E = 520 000
Allocation:
Support departments Production departments
Repair Engineering Moulding Assembly
Traceable costs $96 000 $500 000
Allocation of Repair
Department costs (200 000) 20 000(0.1) $20 000(0.1) $160 000(0.8)
Allocation of Engineering
Department costs 104 000(0.2) (520 000) 364 000(0.7) 52 000(0.1)
Total support department
cost allocated $384 000 $212 000
Direct labour hours (DLH):
(20  2000) 40 000
(80  2000) 160 000
Overhead rate per hour
(total overhead ÷ DLH) $19.60 $5.325
Total $596 000

28
2 The direct allocation method ignores any service rendered by one support department to another. Allocation of
each support department’s total cost is made directly to the production departments. The step-down method
recognises one support department’s usage of services, but ignores the other’s usage of services. The reciprocal
services allocation method recognises all support department service to other support departments through the
use of simultaneous equations. This allocation procedure is more accurate and may lead to better information
that would be of greater value to management. However, as always, in deciding on the method to use
management needs to weigh up the costs associated with the various methods against the benefits that they offer.
PROBLEM 7.41 (45 minutes) (appendix) Absorption versus variable costing: manufacturer
1
Cost per unit Variable Absorption
Direct material $5.00 $5.00
Direct labour 2.00 2.00
Variable overhead 3.00 3.00
Fixed overhead * 2.00
$10.00 $12.00
* Fixed overhead = budgeted fixed overhead
budgeted level of production
= $300 000
150 000
= $2 per unit
2 (a)
Feeling Fab Ltd
Absorption Costing Income Statement
For the Year Ended 30 June
Sales revenue (125 000 units sold at $15 per unit) $1 875 000
Less: Cost of goods sold (at absorption cost of $12 per unit) 1 500 000
Less: Selling and administrative expenses:
Variable (at $1 per unit) 125 000
Fixed 50 000 175 000
Net profit $200 000

29
(b)
Feeling Fab Ltd
Variable Costing Income Statement
For the Year Ended 30 June
Sales revenue (125000 units sold at $15 per unit) $1 875 000
Less: Variable expenses:
Variable manufacturing costs at variable cost of $10 per unit) 1 250 000
Variable selling and administrative costs (at $1 per unit) 125 000 1 375 000
Less: Fixed expenses:
Fixed manufacturing overhead 300 000
Fixed selling and administrative expenses 50 000 350 000
Net profit $150 000
3 Cost of goods sold under absorption costing $1 500 000
Variable cost of goods sold 1 250 000
Difference in cost of goods sold 250 000
Fixed manufacturing overhead as period expense under variable costing 300 000
Total differences between the two methods (50 000)
Net profit under variable costing 150 000
Net profit under absorption costing 200 000
Difference in net profit $(50 000)
4 Difference in fixed overhead expensed under reported profit absorption and variable costing
= change in inventory in units  predetermined fixed overhead rate per unit
= 25 000 units  $2 per unit
= $50 000
As shown in requirement 2, reported profit is $50 000 lower under variable costing.

30
PROBLEM 7.42 (50 minutes) (appendix) Normal costing; profit under absorption and
variable costing: manufacturer
1 (a)
Sleepsound Pty Ltd
Income Statement under Absorption Costing
Year Ended 30 June
Sales revenue (13 500 at $60/unit) $810 000
Less: Cost of goods sold (13 500  $19.40)* 261 900
Less: Selling and administrative expenses
Variable 13 500
Fixed 90 000
103 500
Net profit $444 600
(b)
Sleepsound Pty Ltd
Income Statement under Variable Costing
Year Ended 30 June
Sales revenue (13 500 units at $60/unit) $810 000
Less: Variable expenses
Variable manufacturing costs
(13 500 at $14.40) 194 400
Variable selling & administrative costs 13 500
207 900
Less: Fixed expenses
Fixed selling and administrative expenses 90 000
Net profit $437 100
*As there are no work in process inventories, or beginning finished goods inventory, all manufacturing costs are related to
finished goods.
Direct material $120 000
Direct labour 60 000
Variable manufacturing overhead 36 000
Variable cost of manufacture $216 000 or $14.40/unit
Absorption cost of manufacture $291 000 or $19.40/unit

31
2 The absorption costing profit is $7500 higher because 1500 units produced are carried forward as finished goods
inventory. Each unit carries forward a cost of $5.00 for manufacturing overhead that is expensed under variable
costing.
3
Inventory calculations (units):
Finished-goods inventory, January 1 ............................................................................ 0 units
Add: Units produced ..................................................................................................... 15 000 units
Less: Units sold ............................................................................................................. 13 500 units
Finished-goods inventory, December 31 ...................................................................... 1 500 units
Finished Goods Absorption Costing Variable Costing
1500 units  $19.40 $29 100
1500 units  $14.40 $21 600
4 The major arguments for variable costing are:
(a) Variable costing provides useful information for short-term decisions, such as whether to make or buy a
component, and pricing.
(b) Under variable costing, profit is a function of sales and the classification of costs as fixed or variable
makes it simple to plan costs and profits.
(c) Cost volume profit analysis requires a variable costing format.
(d) Variable costing provides a useful perspective of the impact that fixed costs have on profits by bringing
them together and highlighting them, instead of having them scattered throughout the statement.
The major arguments for absorption costing are:
(a) In the modern business environment, there is likely to be a high level of fixed overhead and, therefore, a
relatively small percentage of manufacturing costs may be assigned to products under variable costing. At
Sleepsound more than one-quarter of the manufacturing cost is fixed manufacturing overhead.
(b) In the longer term a business must cover its fixed costs too, and many managers prefer to use absorption
cost in cost-based pricing decisions. They argue that fixed manufacturing overhead is a necessary cost
incurred in the production process.
Generally the arguments in favour of variable costing are considered to outweigh those in favour of absorption
costing. If fixed overhead costs are high, a significant proportion of manufacturing costs may not be assigned to
products under variable costing. However, absorption costing does not solve this problem effectively because of
the distortions caused by using volume-based cost drivers to assign fixed manufacturing overhead costs to
products. Perhaps it would be better to recommend a new approach to costing, such as activity-based costing,
rather than either of these two traditional costing systems.

32
SOLUTIONS TO CASES
Case 7.43 (50 minutes) Support department cost allocation; plantwide versus departmental
overhead rates; product costing; cost drivers: manufacturer
1 (a) Plantwide overhead rate:
Departments (numbers in thousands)
Moulding Component Assembly Total
Total manufacturing
department overheads $21 000 $16 200 $22 600 $59 800
Support departments:
Power 18 400
Maintenance 4 000
Total estimated overhead $82 200
Estimated direct labour hours (DLH):
Moulding 500
Component 2 000
Assembly 1 500
Total estimated direct labour hours 4 000
Plantwide overhead rate: = estimated overhead
estimated DLH
= $82 200
4 000
(b) Overhead cost of Elite case = (4 +3 + 2)  $20.55 = $184.95

33
Departments (numbers in thousands)
Support Manufacturing
Power Maintenance Moulding Component Assembly
Departmental overhead costs $18 400 $4 000 $21 000 $16 200 $22 600
(a) Allocation of maintenance
costs (direct method).
Proportions: 90/125, 25/125,
10/125 (4 000) 2 880 800 320
(b) Allocation of power costs
(direct method). ($18 400):
Proportions: 360/800,
320/800, 120/800 (18 400) 8 280 7 360 2 760
Total allocated departmental
overhead costs $0 $0 $32 160 $24 360 $25 680
(c) Cost driver 875 MH 2 000 DLH 1 500 DLH
Rate (departmental overhead ÷ units of cost driver)
$36.75* $12.18 $17.12
per MH per DLH per DLH
*Rounded
3 Overhead cost of Elite case = (5 machine hrs  $36.75) + (3 labour hrs  $12.18) + (2 labour hrs  $17.12)
= $254.53
4 Rising Fast Pty Ltd should use departmental rates to assign overhead to its products. The criterion for choosing
an allocation base is a close relationship between cost incurrence and use of the base. This relationship exists
with different bases in different departments, necessitating the use of departmental rates. Rising Fast’s
departments are dissimilar in that the Moulding Department is machine-intensive while the other two
departments are labour-intensive.

34
Case 7.44 (40 minutes) Plantwide and departmental overhead rates for decision making:
manufacturer
To: Mr Adam Cornish
From: Cost management analyst
Subject: Tender process
Top Plating’s costing system is based on a single predetermined plantwide overhead rate of $2.75 per labour hour.*
This uniform rate is flawed as the coating department incurs higher overhead costs per labour hour. Look at the
following analysis:
* Budgeted overhead/budgeted labour hours = ($540 000 + $1 440 000)/60 000 x 12 =$2.75 per labour hour
Preparation Coating
Overhead per month 45 000 120 000
Overhead per labour hour $1.50 ($45 000/30 000) $4 ($120 000/30 000)
Using departmental rates:
Job no. Labour hours in prep Overhead Labour hours in coating Overhead Total cost
1 12 000 18 000 3 000 12 000 30 000
2 3 000 4 500 12 000 48 000 52 500
3 15 000 22 500 0 0 22 500
4 0 0 15 000 60 000 60 000
5 7 500 11 250 7 500 30 000 41 250
This would give us a better grasp of the overhead costs. Job 1, which we lost, was probably significantly overcosted
and Job 2, which we won, may have been significantly underpriced. There is another problem here as Job 5, for which
the costing was correct, was still lost.
We need to investigate three factors:
1 Whether the margins we are charging are too high in the current economic climate. Given that we have spare
capacity, we could cut our margins in the short run. We do not want to get into a bidding war and it may be
preferable to emphasise our quality or other areas in which we can perform better than the competition.
2 Whether our overhead cost structure is too high. Are our competitors undercutting us on jobs like number 5
because they have a leaner overhead structure? Or does the problem go back to inefficiencies in the factory, as a
result of which we are using too much material and labour? We need to investigate whether our cost structures
are similar to our competitors.
3 If the general market is quiet, should we be expecting to recover all of our fixed costs on every job? Given that
our fixed costs are significant, we may need to look at just the variable costs of each order for the short run.
At this juncture I would recommend a bidding policy based on the departmental overhead rates. However, there
needs to be more work done to understand why we are uncompetitive and perhaps a move to cut our costs.

35
Case 7.45 (40 minutes) Absorption and variable costing: manufacturer
1 Absorption-costing income statements:
Year 1 Year 2
Sales revenue ................................................................................................................$125 000a
$125 000d
Less: Cost of goods sold:
Beginning finished-goods inventory ...............................................................$ 0 $ 10 500e
Cost of goods manufactured ........................................................................... 63 000b
56 000f
Cost of goods available for sale ......................................................................$ 63 000 $ 66 500
Ending finished-goods inventory .................................................................... 10 500c
0
Cost of goods sold ..........................................................................................$ 52 500 $ 66 500
Gross margin .................................................................................................................$ 72 500 $ 58 500
Selling and administrative expenses ............................................................................. 45 000 45 000
Operating profit .............................................................................................................$ 27 500 $ 13 500
a
2500 units  $50 per unit
b
$21 000 + $42 000 (i.e. both variable and fixed costs)
c
500 units  ($63 000/3 000 units)
d
2500 units  $50 per unit
e
Same as Year 1 ending inventory
f
$14 000 + $42 000 (i.e. both variable and fixed costs)

Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content

lo lejos ruido de trompetas y cañonazos). Hamlet, esta perla es pana ti, y
brindo con ella á tu salud. Dadle la copa.
Hamlet.—Esperad un poco. (Vuelven á batallar). Quiero dar este bote
primero. Vamos... Otra estocada. ¿Qué decís?
Laertes.—Sí, me ha tocado: lo confieso.
Claudio.—¡Oh! nuestro hijo vencerá.
Gertrudis.—Está grueso y se fatiga demasiado. Ven aquí, Hamlet, toma
este lienzo y límpiate el rostro... La reina brinda á tu buena fortuna, querido
Hamlet.
(Toma la copa y bebe; Claudio lo quiere estorbar; y Gertrudis bebe
segunda vez).
Hamlet.—Muchas gracias, señora.
Claudio.—No, no bebáis.
Gertrudis.—¡Oh! señor, perdonadme, yo he de beber.
Claudio.—¡La copia envenenada!... Pero... no hay remedio.
Hamlet.—No, ahora no bebo, esperad un instante.
Gertrudis.—Ven, hijo mío, te limpiaré el sudor del rostro.
Laertes.—Ahora veréis si le acierto.
(Laertes habla con Claudio en voz baja, mientras Gertrudis limpia con un
lienzo el sudor á Hamlet).
Claudio.—Yo pienso que no.
Laertes.—No sé qué repugnancia siento al ir á ejecutarlo.
Hamlet.—Vamos á la tercera, Laertes... Pero bien se ve que lo tomáis a
fiesta: batallad, os ruego, con más ahinco. Mucho temo que os burléis de
mí.
Laertes.—¿Eso decís, señor? Vamos. (Batallan).
Enrique.—Nada: ni uno ni otro.
Laertes.—Ahora... ésta...
(Vuelven á batallar; se enfurecen, truécanse las espadas y quedan heridos
los dos. Horacio y Enrique los separan con dificultad; Gertrudis cae
moribunda en los brazos de Claudio. Todo es terror y confusión.)

Claudio.—Parece que se acaloran demasiado... Separadlos.
Hamlet.—No, no, vamos otra vez.
Enrique.—Ved qué tiene la reina... ¡Cielos!
Horacio.—¡Ambos heridos! ¿Qué es esto, señor?
Enrique.—¿Cómo ha sido, Laertes?
Laertes.—Esto es haber caído en el lazo que preparé... justamente
muero víctima de mi propia traición.
Hamlet.—¿Qué tiene la reina?
Claudio.—Se ha desmayado al veros heridos.
Gertrudis.—No, no... ¡La bebida!... ¡Querido Hamlet!... ¡La bebida!....
¡Me han envenenado!
(Queda muerta en la silla).
Hamlet.—¡Oh, qué alevosía!... ¡Oh!... Cerrad las puertas... Traición...
Buscad por todas partes...
Laertes.—No, el traidor está aquí. (Dirá esto sostenido por Enrique).
Hamlet, tú eres muerto... No hay medicina que pueda salvarte: vivirás
media hora apenas... En tu mano está el instrumento aleve, bañada con
ponzoña su aguda punta... ¡Volvióse en mi daño la trama indigna!... Vesme
aquí postrado para no levantarme jamás... Tu madre ha bebido un tósigo...
No puedo proseguir... El rey, el rey es el delincuente.
(Claudio quiere huir. Hamlet corre á él furioso, y le atraviesa la espada por
el cuerpo. Toma la copa envenenada, y se la hace apurar por fuerza. Le
deja muerto en el suelo, y vuelve á oir las últimas palabras de Laertes.)
Hamlet.—¿Está envenenada esta punta? Pues, veneno, produce tus
efectos.
Todos.—Traición, traición.
Claudio.—Amigos, estoy herido... Defendedme.
Hamlet.—¡Malvado, incestuoso, asesino! Bebe esta ponzoña... ¿Está la
perla aquí? Sí, toma, acompaña á mi madre.
Laertes.—¡Justo castigo!... El mismo preparó la poción mortal...
Olvidémonos de todo, generoso Hamlet, y... ¡Oh, no caiga sobre ti la muerte
de mi padre y la mía, ni sobre mí la tuya! (Cae muerto).

Hamlet.—El cielo te perdone... Ya voy á seguirte... Yo muero, Horacio...
Adiós, reina infeliz... (Abrazando el cadáver de Gertrudis). Vosotros, que
asistís pálidos y mudos con el temor á este suceso terrible.... Si yo tuviera
tiempo... (Empieza á manifestar desfallecimiento y angustias de muerte.
Parte de los manifestantes le acompañan y sostienen. Horacio hace
extremos de dolor). La muerte es un ministro inexorable que no dilata la
ejecución... Yo pudiera deciros... pero no es posible. Horacio, yo muero. Tú,
que vivirás, refiere la verdad y los motivos de mi conducta á quien los
ignora.
Horacio.—¿Vivir? No lo creáis. Yo tengo alma romana, y aun ha
quedado aquí parte del tósigo.
(Busca en la mesa el jarro del veneno, echa porción de él en una copa, va á
beber. Hamlet quiere estorbárselo. Los criados quitan la copa á Horacio, la
toma Hamlet, y la tira al suelo.)
Hamlet.—Dame esa copa... presto... por Dios te lo pido. ¡Oh, querido
Horacio! si esto permanece oculto, ¡qué manchada reputación dejaré
después de mi muerte! Si alguna vez me diste lugar en tu corazón, retarda
un poco esa felicidad que apeteces, alarga por algún tiempo la fatigosa vida
en este mundo lleno de miserias, y divulga por él mi historia... ¿Qué
estrépito militar es éste?
(Suena música militar, que se va aproximando lentamente).
ESCENA X
HAMLET, HORACIO, ENRIQUE, un Caballero y acompañamiento
Caballero.—El joven Fortimbrás, que vuelve vencedor de Polonia,
saluda con la salva marcial que oís, a los embajadores de Inglaterra.
Hamlet.—Yo espiro, Horacio; la activa ponzoña sofoca mi aliento... No
puedo vivir para saber nuevas de Inglaterra; pero me atrevo á anunciar que
Fortimbrás será elegido por aquella nación. Yo moribundo le doy mi voto...
Díselo tú, e infórmale de cuanto acaba de ocurrir... ¡Oh! Para mí sólo queda
ya... silencio eterno.
(Muere).
Horacio.—¡En fin, se rompe ese gran corazón!... Adiós, adiós, amado
príncipe. (Le besa las manos, y hace ademanes de dolor). ¡Los coros

angélicos te acompañen al celeste descanso!... Pero, ¿cómo se acerca hasta
aquí ese estruendo de tambores?
ESCENA XI
FORTIMBRAS, dos embajadores, HORACIO, ENRIQUE, soldados,
acompañamiento
Fortimbrás.—¿En dónde está ese espectáculo?
Horacio.—¿Qué buscáis aquí? Si no queréis ver desgracias espantosas,
no paséis adelante.
Fortimbrás.—¡Oh! Este destrozo pide sangrienta venganza... Soberbia
muerte, ¿qué festín dispones en tu morada infernal, que así has herido con
un golpe solo tantas ilustres víctimas?
Embajador 1.º.—¡Horroriza el verlo!... Tarde hemos llegado con los
mensajes de Inglaterra. Los oídos á quienes debíamos dirigirlos son ya
insensibles. Sus órdenes fueron puntualmente ejecutadas. Ricardo y
Guillermo perdieron la vida... Pero, ¿quién nos dará las gracias de nuestra
obediencia?
Horacio.—No las recibiríais de su boca aunque viviese todavía, que él
nunca dió orden para tales muertes. Pero puesto que vos, viniendo
victorioso de la guerra contra Polonia, y vosotros, enviados de Inglaterra, os
halláis juntos en este lugar, y os veo deseosos de averiguar este suceso
trágico, disponed que esos cadáveres se expongan sobre una tumba elevada
á la vista pública, y entonces haré saber al mundo, que lo ignora, el motivo
de estas desgracias. Me oiréis hablar (pues todo os lo sabré referir
fielmente) de acciones crueles, bárbaras, atroces: sentencias que dictó el
acaso, estragos imprevistos, muertes ejecutadas con violencia y aleve
astucia, y al fin proyectos malogrados que han hecho perecer á sus autores
mismos.
Fortimbrás.—Deseo con impaciencia oiros, y convendrá que se reuna
con este objeto la nobleza de la nación. No puedo mirar sin horror los dones
que me ofrece la fortuna; pero tengo derechos muy antiguos á esta corona, y
en tal ocasión es justo reclamarlos.
Horacio.—También puedo hablar en ese propósito, declarando el voto
que pronunció aquella boca que ya no formará sonido alguno... Pero ahora
que los ánimos están en peligroso movimiento, no se dilate la ejecución un

instante solo, para evitar los males que pudieran causar la malignidad ó el
error.
Fortimbrás.—Cuatro de mis capitanes lleven al túmulo el cuerpo de
Hamlet con las insignias correspondientes á un guerrero. ¡Ah! si él hubiese
ocupado el trono, sin duda hubiera sido un excelente monarca... Resuene la
música militar por donde pase la pompa fúnebre, y hágansele todos los
honores de la guerra... Quitad, quitad de ahí esos cadáveres. Espectáculo
sangriento más es propio de un campo de batalla que de este sitio... Y
vosotros haced que salude con descargas todo el ejército.
FIN DEL DRAMA
TEATRO FACIL
Obras de facilísima representación por su sencillez de decorado y pocos
personajes
HombresMujeres
1 0 Como rezan las solteras, por R. de Campoamor
2 3 Sistema Ollendorff, por Felipe Pérez Capo
1 1 Cartas de novios, por Enrique Arroyo
0 2 Pescadores de caña, por A. Mundet
0 5 A prima fija, por P. Muñoz Seca
1 0 La última carta, por F. Flores García.
2 2 La marquesita loca, por A. Jimenez Lora
1 1 El caminante, por R. J. Catarineu
1 0 Marinera, por Joaquín Dicenta
1 1 Caminico e la juente, por Portusach y Castellví
0 2 El león de bronce, por Joaquín Dicenta
3 0 Rosas todo el año, por Julio Dantas
2 2 El billete del baile, por L. Millá y E. Arroyo
1 2 Los hombres, por Armando Oliveros
1 1 Lo que hace el querer, por Domingo Moreno
5 2 Nunca es tarde, por A. Insua y A. Hernández Catá
1 5 El grito de libertad, por Augusto Fochs

1 2 Petición de mano, por Alberto Cosin
2 2 Locura, boceto de drama en un acto, por J. A.
2 2 ¡Por una furlana!, juguete por T. de Mun
1 2 Un ojo de cristal, juguete en un acto, por L. Emegé
2 3 Bailes rusos, juguete por T. de Mun
0 6 El 4.º acto del Tenorio, por Pío M. Glañin
0 6 La factura de un incendio, por Gil Pimoñan
0 7 El tío de su sobrino, por M. P. y R.
2 3 ¡Qué escándalo!, juguete cómico, por Gil Pimoñan
0 5 Expiación, cuadro dramático, por M. P. Areri
1 1 La cajita de rapé, diálogo por Luis Millá
1 6 Los tres novios de Petrilla, por Magin P. Riera
1 5 El señor empresario, por Gil Pimoñon
A 50 céntimos cada obra
Casa Editorial Maucci, Mallorca, 166.—Barcelona

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HAMLET: DRAMA
EN CINCO ACTOS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.
copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and
Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project
Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1

with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information

about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who
notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or

damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for
the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,
the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission
of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will

remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many

small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where
we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Management Accounting Information for Managing and Creating Value 7th Edition Smith Solutions Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Management Accounting Information for Managing and Creating Value 7th Edition Smith Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Management Accounting Information for Managing and Creating Value 7th Edition Smith Solutions Manual