A river runs between them: An instructional case in professional services provided by a CPA firm
Abstract This instructional case presents a realistic situation in which there is a request for professional services by a CPA firm. Two towns, Weston and Easton, are involved in a dispute over the costs of a shared wastewater treatment facility. The mayor of Easton believes his town has paid more than its agreed-upon share of the facility's operating costs over the years. The mayor of Easton has approached a local CPA firm to “audit” the amount Easton has paid towards operation of the plant and determine the amount of the overpayment. Students are asked (1) to determine whether an audit can be performed, (2) if an audit cannot be performed, to decide what type of service is appropriate, (3) to research the applicable professional standards, (4) to assess whether the applicable standards can be met, (5) to develop a program that outlines the steps/procedures to be completed when providing the professional service to the mayor, and (6) to identify other concerns relevant to accepting this engagement.
A Class Exercise: Accounting for Stock Option Modifications and Option Service and Performance Conditions
The exercise enhances critical thinking skills, increases professional research practice, and improves written skills. It introduces students to common real-world events and reinforces their learning related to stock compensation.
Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure
In fiscal year 2007—the most recent year for which data on combined spending by the federal government and by state and local governments are available—total public spending for transportation and water infrastructure was $356 billion, or 2.4 percent of the nation’s economic output as measured by its gross domestic product. For the purposes of this study, transportation and water infrastructure encompasses infrastructure for all forms of surface transportation (highways, mass transit, rail, and waterways), aviation, water resources (such as dams and levees), and water distribution and wastewater treatment. Between 2003 and 2007, real (inflation-adjusted) public spending on transportation and water infrastructure declined by $23 billion, or 6 percent. That decline, which reflects a decrease in real capital spending, especially by the federal government, stands in contrast to the fairly steady increase in spending for such infrastructure during the previous two decades. In particular, real capital spending on highways, mass transit, and aviation fell markedly even as capital spending on other types of infrastructure— such as rail and water transportation, water resources, and water supply and wastewater treatment— remained stable or rose. The drop in real capital spending for highways, mass transit, and aviation between 2003 and 2007 was primarily the result of a sharp increase in prices for materials used to build such infrastructure—an increase that outpaced the growth of nominal (currentdollar) spending on those types of infrastructure. In 2009, the federal government spent $87 billion on transportation and water infrastructure, an increase of $6 billion over the amount spent in 2007. Of those outlays, about $4 billion was made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In total, lawmakers appropriated $62 billion in funding for transportation and water infrastructure under that legislation. The Congressional Budget Office expects that, in nominal terms, federal spending for transportation and water infrastructure under ARRA will total $54 billion through 2013, by which time almost 90 percent of the funds made available for infrastructure through ARRA will have been spent. The composition of public spending on transportation and water infrastructure can be represented in three ways: by the level of government providing the funding or other form of financial support; by the nature of the spending (whether it is designated for capital projects or for operation and maintenance); and by the type of infrastructure. State and local governments account for about 75 percent of total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure—even after subtracting from their gross spending the value of grants and loan subsidies that the federal government provides for such purposes—and the federal government accounts for the other 25 percent. That split has remained roughly constant over the past two decades.