(Download PDF) Managerial Accounting Canadian 11th Edition Garrison Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Managerial Accounting Canadian 11th
Edition Garrison Solutions Manual

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/managerial-accounting-canadian-11th-edition-garriso
n-solutions-manual/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Managerial Accounting Canadian 11th Edition Garrison

Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/managerial-accounting-
canadian-11th-edition-garrison-test-bank/
Managerial Accounting Canadian Canadian 10th Edition

Garrison Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/managerial-accounting-canadian-
canadian-10th-edition-garrison-solutions-manual/

Solutions Manual
canadian-9th-edition-garrison-solutions-manual/
Managerial Accounting Canadian Canadian 10th Edition

Garrison Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/managerial-accounting-canadian-
Test Bank
Managerial Accounting 15th Edition Garrison Solutions

Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/managerial-accounting-15th-
edition-garrison-solutions-manual/

Manual
Managerial Accounting 2nd Edition Garrison Solutions

Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/managerial-accounting-2nd-

Manual
Chapter 6
Systems Design: Process Costing
Solution to Discussion Case
Estimating percentage of completion of products requires a judgment call.

As with all areas where judgment comes to play, managers will tend to be
more or less conservative depending on several factors including the de-
gree to which they inherently tend toward conservative estimates and fore-
casts. From the perspective of the organization, the objective is to provide
as accurate an estimate of percentage of completion as possible in order to
better understand and control costs and to ensure the integrity of the cost-
ing system. Even so, managers also have incentives to improve profit, both
for the shareholder's sake as well as to meet performance evaluation and
bonus targets each year. But “misestimating” is likely of only short term
benefit since the Board will quite quickly fail to trust the manager's esti-
mated percentage of completion if they prove to be wrong over several pe-
riods. Once this happens, the company would be foolish to continue to
provide incentives to base bonuses on divisional profit figures if these fig-
ures cannot be trusted. In the end, the benefit of subverting the integrity
of the accounting system is likely much lower than the potential long-term
reputational cost.
© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd. 2018. All rights reserved.

Solutions Manual, Chapter 6 1
Solutions to Questions
6-1 A process costing system should be 6-8 Disagree. In fact, flexible manufacturing
used in situations where a homogeneous prod- systems may actually increase the use of pro-
ucts or services are produced on a continuous cess costing over time. These systems can have
basis. a major impact on costing since they allow for
an easy switch from producing one type of
6-2 product to another. The systems’ flexibility
1. In job-order costing many different jobs are means product switching results in little time lost
worked on during each period each with its own and relatively low setup costs. Therefore, com-
production requirements. In process costing, a panies are able to move between products with
single product is produced on a continuous basis about the same speed as they would if they
and all units are identical. were working in a continuous processing envi-
2. The job cost sheet is the key document in ronment. As the use of flexible manufacturing
job-order costing while the department produc- systems grows, so should the application of pro-
tion report is the key document in process cost- cess costing techniques.
ing.
3. Unit costs are computed by job in job-order 6-9 Advantages of the weighted average meth-
costing while unit costs are computed by de- od include: computations are simpler; the man-
partment in process costing. agers does not need information at too fine a
level of detail so the average is informative
6-3 Cost accumulation is simpler under pro- enough; there is little change in cost from period
cess costing because costs only need to be as- to period; ending inventory are typically low
signed to departments—not separate jobs. A each period so the average ends up being quite
company usually has a small number of accurate.
processing departments, whereas a job-order
costing system often must keep track of the
costs of hundreds or even thousands of jobs.
6-4 In a process costing system, a Work in

Process account is maintained for each pro-
cessing department.
6-5 The journal entry would be:

Work in Process,- Firing ....................................
XXXX
Work in Process-, Mixing ... XXXX
6-6 The costs that might be added to the

Firing Department’s Work in Process account dur-
ing the period are, (1) transferred-in costs from
the Mixing Department; (2) materials costs; (3)
labour costs; and (4) overhead costs added in
the Firing Department.
6-7 Under the weighted-average method,

equivalent units of production consist of units
transferred to the next department (or to fi-
nished goods) during the period plus the equiva-
lent units in the department’s ending work in
process inventory.
© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

2 Managerial Accounting, 11th Edition
Foundational Exercises
1. The journal entries would be recorded as follows:
Work in Process—Mixing .................................................
120,000
Raw Materials Inventory ............................................ 120,000
79,500
Wages Payable ......................................................... 79,500
2. The journal entry would be recorded as follows:

97,000
Manufacturing Overhead ........................................... 97,000
3. The “units completed and transferred to finished goods” is computed

as follows:
Pounds
Work in process, June 1 .......................................... 5,000
Started into production during the month ................. 37,500
Total pounds in process........................................... 42,500
Deduct work in process, June 30.............................. 8,000
Completed and transferred out during the month ...... 34,500
4. and 5.
The equivalent units of production for materials and conversion are
computed as follows:
Equivalent Units
Materials Conversion
Units transferred out .................................... 34,500 34,500
Work in process, ending:
8,000 units × 100%.................................... 8,000
8,000 units × 40% ..................................... 3,200
Equivalent units of production ........................ 42,500 37,700

Foundational Exercises (continued)
6. and 7.
Cost of beginning work in process ................ $ 16,000 $ 12,000
Cost added during the period ....................... 120,000 176,500*
Total cost .................................................... $136,000 $188,500
* $79,500 + $97,000 = $176,500
8. and 9.
The cost per equivalent unit for materials and conversion is computed
as follows:
Total cost (a) ......................................... $136,000 $188,500
Equivalent units of production (b) ........... 42,500 37,700
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b) ........... $3.20 $5.00
10. and 11.

The cost of ending work in process inventory for materials and conver-
sion is computed as follows:
Materials Conversion Total
Equivalent units of production (a) ... 8,000 3,200
Cost per equivalent unit (b) ............ $3.20 $5.00
Cost of ending work in process
inventory (a) × (b) .................... $25,600 $16,000 $41,600*
* $41,600 is the June 30 balance in the Work in Process—Mixing De-
partment T-account.
12. and 13.

The cost of materials and conversion transferred to finished goods is
computed as follows:
Units transferred out (a) .......................34,500 34,500
Cost per equivalent unit (b) .................. $3.20 $5.00
Cost of units transferred to finished
goods (a) × (b) ...............................
$110,400 $172,500 $282,900
© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

Foundational Exercises (continued)
14. The journal entry to record the transfer of costs from Work in Pro-
cess—Mixing to Finished Goods would be recorded as follows:
Finished Goods............................................ 282,900
Work in Process—Mixing ....................... 282,900
15. The total cost to be accounted for and the total cost accounted for is:
Costs to be accounted for:
Cost of beginning work in process inventory ....... $ 28,000
Costs added to production during the period ...... 296,500
Total cost to be accounted for ........................... $324,500
Costs accounted for:
Cost of ending work in process inventory ........... $ 41,600
Cost of units completed and transferred out ....... 282,900
Total cost accounted for .................................... $324,500

Exercise 6-1 (20 minutes)
a. To record issuing raw materials for use in production:
Work in Process—Moulding Department ....... 28,000
Work in Process—Firing Department............. 5,000
Raw Materials ....................................... 33,000
b. To record direct labour costs incurred:

Wages Payable ..................................... 23,000
c. To record applying manufacturing overhead:

Manufacturing Overhead ....................... 61,000
d. To record transfer of unfired, molded bricks from the Molding Depart-

ment to the Firing Department:
Work in Process—Moulding Department . 67,000
e. To record transfer of finished bricks from the Firing Department to the

finished goods warehouse:
Finished Goods............................................ 108,000
Work in Process—Firing Department ...... 108,000
f. To record Cost of Goods Sold:

Cost of Goods Sold ...................................... 106,000
Finished Goods ..................................... 106,000

Weighted-Average Method
Quantity Schedule
Units to be accounted for:
Work in process, October 1 25,000
Units started into production 195,000
Total units 220,000
Equivalent Units
Units transferred to the next depart-
ment .........................................................
205,000 205,000 205,000
Ending work in process:
Materials: 15,000 units × 70%
complete .................................................
15,000 10,500
Conversion: 15,000 units × 50%
complete ................................................. 7,500
Equivalent units of production ....................... 220,000 215,500 212,500

Costs per Equivalent Unit:
Total
Cost Materials Labour Overhead
Work in process, May 1 ........$167,500 $ 28,000 $22,000 $117,500
Cost added during May ........ 134,100 52,000 18,500 63,600
Total cost (a) ......................$301,600 $80,000 $40,500 $181,100
Equivalent units of
production (b)................... ----- 1,500 800 1,200
Cost per equivalent unit -----
(a) ÷ (b) .......................... $53.33 $50.63 $150.92
Total cost per equivalent Unit = $53.33 + $50.63 + $150.92 = $254.88

1.
Materials Labor Overhead
Cost of beginning work in process
inventory................................... $ 18,000 $ 5,500 $ 27,500
Cost added during the period ........ 238,900 80,300 401,500
Total cost (a) ............................... $256,900 $85,800 $429,000
Equivalent units of production (b) . 35,000 33,000 33,000
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b) . $7.34 $2.60 $13.00
2.
Cost per equivalent unit for materials ..... $ 7.34
Cost per equivalent unit for labor ........... 2.60
Cost per equivalent unit for overhead ..... 13.00
Total cost per equivalent unit ................. $22.94

Work in Process—Mixing ................................................

330,000
Raw Materials Inventory ........................................... 330,000
260,000
Work in Process—Baking ................................................
120,000
Wages Payable ......................................................... 380,000
190,000
90,000
760,000
Work in Process—Mixing ........................................... 760,000
Finished Goods ..............................................................
980,000
Work in Process—Baking ........................................... 980,000

1. Equivalent Units (EU)

Labour &
Materials Overhead
Litres transferred to the next department during
June* ................................................................. 790,000 790,000
Work in process, June 30:
Materials: 50,000 litres × 60% complete .............. 30,000
Labour and overhead: 50,000 litres × 20% com-
plete ................................................................ 10,000
Equivalent units of production ................................ 820,000 800,000
* Beginning WIP 80,000 + Started 760,000 – Ending WIP 50,000 =

790,000 litres.
2. Cost per Equivalent Unit: Materials Labour Overhead

Cost of beginning work in process ....... $ 68,600 $ 30,000 $ 48,000
Costs added during June .................... 907,200 370,000 592,000
Total cost (a) ..................................... $975,800 $400,000 $640,000
Equivalent units of production (b) ....... 820,000 800,000 800,000
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b)........ $1.19 $.50 $.80

Equivalent Units (EU)

Labour &
Materials Overhead
Litres transferred to the Heating Department dur-
ing October* ....................................................... 45,000 45,000
Work in process, October 31:
plete ................................................................ 3,500
* Beginning WIP 25,000 + Started 25,000 – Ending WIP 5,000 = 45,000

litres .

1. Equivalent Units: Materials Conversion

Units transferred to the next process ...............320,000 320,000
Materials: 60,000 units × 45% complete ....... 27,000
Conversion: 60,000 units × 20% complete ...... 12,000
Equivalent units of production .........................347,000 332,000
2. Costs per Equivalent Unit: Materials Conversion

Cost of beginning work in process ..................$ 76,600 $ 34,900
Cost added during the period ......................... 410,000 234,500
Total cost (a) ................................................$486,600 $269,400
Equivalent units of production (b)................... 347,000 332,000
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b) ................... $1.40 $0.81*
3. Materials Conversion Total

Ending work in process inventory:
Equivalent units of production
(see above) ........................ 27,000 12,000
Cost per equivalent unit (see
above) ............................... $1.40 $0.81
inventory ............................ $37,800 $9,720 $47,520
Units completed and transferred out:

Units transferred to the next
department ........................ 320,000 320,000
Cost per equivalent unit
(see previous exercise)........ $1.40 $0.81
Cost of units completed and
transferred out…………………. $448,000 $259,200 $707,200
*rounded

Cost Reconciliation
Total Cost Conversion

EU
Cost accounted for as follow:
Transferred to Packaging Dept:
5,000 claims x $1.50 $7,500 5,000
Work in process, March 31:
Conversion, $1.50 per EU $960 640 (800 x 80%)
Total cost accounted for $8,460

Problem 6-10 (45 minutes)
1. Equivalent Units of Production

Transferred to next department........................ 380,000 380,000
Materials: 100,000 units × 60% complete ...... 60,000
Conversion: 100,000 units × 40% complete ... 40,000
Equivalent units of production .......................... 440,000 420,000
2. Cost per Equivalent Unit

Cost added during the period ....................... 425,500 145,000
Total cost (a) .............................................. $471,000 $170,000
Equivalent units of production (b) ................ 440,000 420,000
Cost per equivalent unit, (a) ÷ (b) ............... $1.07 $0.405*
*rounded
Applying Costs to Units

3.
(materials: 100,000 units ×
60% complete; conversion:
100,000 units × 40% com-
plete) ................................ 60,000 40,000
Cost per equivalent unit ....... $1.07 $0.405
inventory ........................... $64,200 $16,200 $80,400
department ....................... 380,000 380,000
transferred out................... $406,600 $153,900 $560,500
Problem 6-10 (continued)
4. Cost Reconciliation
Cost of beginning work in process inventory
($45,500 + $25,000).................................. $ 70,500
Costs added to production during the period
($425,500 + $145,000) .............................. 570,500
Total cost to be accounted for ....................... $641,000
Costs accounted for as follows:
Transferred to next department:
380,000 units x $1.475 ..................................... $560,500
Work in process June 30
Materials at $1.07 per EU ............................. 64,200
Conversion at $0.405 per EU ........................ 16,200
80,400
Total cost accounted for ............................... $640,900*
*off $100 due to rounding


Transferred to next department* ...................... 395,000 395,000
Materials: 55,000 units × 65% complete ........ 35,750
Conversion: 55,000 units × 30% complete ..... 16,500
*Units transferred to the next department = Units in beginning work in

process + Units started into production − Units in ending work in
process = 85,000 + 365,000 − 55,000 = 395,000

Total cost (a) .............................................. $563,000 $264,000
Cost per equivalent unit, (a) ÷ (b) ............... $1.31 $0.64*
*rounded

3. Cost of Ending Work in Process Inventory and Units Transferred Out

(materials: 55,000 units × 65%
complete; conversion: 55,000 16,500
units × 30% complete) ...... 35,750
inventory ........................... $46,833 $10,560 $57,393
Units transferred to the next 395,000 395,000
department .......................
transferred out................... $517,450 $252,800 $770,250

($101,000 + $51,000) .................................... $152,000
($462,000 + $213,000) .................................. 675,000
Total Cost $827,000

Transferred to the Coating Department
395,000 x $1.95 $770,250
Work in process, May 31
Materials at $1.31 per EU 46,833
Conversion at $0.64 per EU 10,560
Total ending Work in process 57,393
Total cost *$827,643
*Difference of $643 due to rounding of the per unit costs

1. Total units transferred to the next department ... 28,000
Less units in the May 1 inventory ...................... 8,000
Units started and completed in May................... 20,000
2. The equivalent units were:

Transferred to next department.................. 28,000 28,000
Materials: 6,000 units × 75% complete .... 4,500
Conversion: 6,000 units × 50% complete . 3,000
Equivalent units of production .................... 32,500 31,000
3. The costs per equivalent unit were:

Cost of beginning work in process ................ £ 9,000 £ 4,400
Total cost (a) .............................................. £65,000 £35,650
Cost per equivalent unit, (a) ÷ (b) ............... £2.00 £1.15
4. The ending work in process figure is verified as follows:

Materials Conver- Total
sion
(see above) ................................. 4,500 3,000
Cost per equivalent unit ................. £2.00 £1.15
inventory ..................................... £9,000 £3,450 £12,450
5. Multiplying the total unit cost figure of £3.15 per unit by 1,000 units
does not provide a valid estimate of the incremental cost of processing
an additional 1,000 units through the department. If there is sufficient
idle capacity to process an additional 1,000 units, the incremental cost
per unit is almost certainly less than £3.17 per unit because the conver-
sion costs are likely to include fixed costs.


Transferred to next department* ...................... 270,000 270,000
Materials: 45,000 kilograms × 100% complete .. 45,000
Conversion: 45,000 kilograms × 2/3 complete .. 30,000
*35,000 + 280,000 – 45,000 = 270,000.

Total cost (a) .............................................. $441,000 $210,000
Cost per equivalent unit, (a) ÷ (b) ............... $1.40 $0.70
3. Cost of Ending Work in Process Inventory and Units Transferred Out

(see above) ....................... 45,000 30,000
inventory ........................... $63,000 $21,000 $84,000
department ....................... 270,000 270,000
Cost per equivalent unit ....... $1.40 $0.70 $2.10
transferred out................... $378,000 $189,000 $567,000

4. In computing unit costs, the weighted-average method mixes costs of
the prior period with current period costs. Thus, under the weighted-
average method, unit costs are influenced to some extent by what hap-
pened in a prior period. This problem becomes particularly significant
when attempting to measure performance in the current period. Good
(or bad) cost control in the current period might be concealed by the
costs that have been brought forward in the beginning inventory.

1. The equivalent units are:

Units completed during the year ..................... 680,000 680,000
Work in process, Dec. 31:
Materials: 25,000 units × 100% complete .... 25,000
Conversion: 25,000 units × 50% complete ... 12,500
Equivalent units of production ........................ 705,000 692,500
The costs per equivalent unit are:

Work in process, Jan. 1.................................. $ 22,000 $ 48,000
Cost added during the year ............................ 750,000 2,000,000
Total cost (a) ................................................ $772,000 $2,048,000
Equivalent units of production (b)................... 705,000 692,500
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b) ................... $1.10 $2.96
2. The amount of cost that should be assigned to the ending inventories is:
(see above) ....................... 25,000 12,500
inventory ........................... $27,500 $37,000 $64,500
Finished goods inventory:
Equivalent units ................... 30,000 30,000
transferred out................... $33,000 $88,800 $121,800

3. The necessary adjustments would be:
Work in Finished
Process Goods Total
Total cost that should be assigned
to inventories (see above) ............................................
$ 64,500 $121,800 $186,300
Year-end balances in the accounts ..................................
60,000 113,500 173,500
Error..............................................................................
$4,500 $ 8,300 12,800
Finished Goods Inventory................................................

8,300
Cost of Goods Sold ....................................................12,800
Work in Process Inventory ..............................................
4,500

1. a. Work in Process—Blending .............................................

495,000
Work in Process—Bottling 115,000
610,000
Raw Materials ...........................................................
b. Work in Process—Blending .............................................
72,000
Work in Process—Bottling ...............................................
18,000
Salaries and Wages Payable ...................................... 90,000
c. Manufacturing Overhead ................................................
225,000
Accounts Payable ......................................................
225,000
d. Work in Process—Blending .............................................
181,000
Manufacturing Overhead ...........................................181,000
Work in Process—Bottling ...............................................
42,000
e. Finished Goods ..............................................................

950,000
Work in Process—Bottling .......................................... 950,000
f. Accounts Receivable .......................................................
1,500,000
Sales ........................................................................
1,500,000
Cost of Goods Sold .........................................................
890,000
Finished Goods ......................................................... 890,000

2.
Work in Process—Bottling Work in Process—Blending
Bal. 65,000 (e) 950,000 Bal. 38,000 Part 4 740,000
(a) 115,000 (a) 495,000
(b) 18,000 (b) 72,000
(d) 42,000 (d) 181,000
Part 4 740,000
Bal. 30,000 Bal. 46,000
Manufacturing Overhead Finished Goods

(c) 225,000 (d) 181,000 Bal. 20,000 (f) 890,000
(d) 42,000 (e) 950,000
Bal. 2,000 Bal. 80,000
Raw Materials Accounts Payable

Bal. 681,000 (a) 610,000 (c) 225,000
Bal. 71,000
Salaries and Wages Payable Sales

(b) 90,000 (f) 1,500,000
Accounts Receivable Cost of Goods Sold

(f) 1,500,000 (f) 890,000

3. Production Report – Blending Department
Quantity
Schedule
Work in process, March 1 20,000
Started into production 390,000
Total Units 410,000
Equivalent Units (EU)
Material Labour Overhead
Units accounted for as follows:
Transferred to Bottling 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000
Work in process March 31 40,000 30,000 10,000 10,000
Total units and equivalent
units of production 410,000 400,000 380,000 380,000
Costs per Equivalent Unit:
Total cost Material Labour Overhead
Cost to be accounted for:
Work in process, March 1 $38,000 $25,000 $4,000 $9,000
Cost added by the Blending
Department 748,000 495,000 72,000 181,000
Total Cost $786,000 $520,000 $76,000 $190,000
Equivalent units of production 400,000 380,000 380,000
Cost per equivalent unit $1.30 $0.20 $0.50
4. Units transferred to bottling 370,000 x ($1.30 + $0.20 +$0.50)
Work in Process—Bottling...............................................
740,000
Work in Process—Blending ........................................ 740,000

1. Equivalent units of production
Materials: 40,000 units x 75% complete ......... 30,000
Conversion: 40,000 units x 60% complete ...... 24,000
2. Cost per equivalent unit

Total cost (a) .............................................. $646,800 $278,200
3. Total units transferred ................................. 190,000

Less units in the beginning inventory............ 30,000
Units started and completed during April ...... 160,000
Note: This answer assumes that the units in the beginning inventory
are completed before any other units are completed.
4. No, the manager should not be rewarded for good cost control. The
Mixing Department’s low unit cost for April occurred because the costs
of the prior month have been averaged in with April’s costs. This is a
major criticism of the weighted-average method. Costs computed for
product costing purposes should not be used to evaluate cost control
or to measure performance for the current period.

1. Equivalent units of production:

Materials: 40,000 units x 100% complete ....... 40,000
Conversion: 40,000 units x 25% complete ...... 10,000

Total cost (a) .............................................. $360,000 $263,500
3. Applying costs to units:

Equivalent units of production 40,000 10,000
inventory ........................... $72,000 $15,500 $87,500
department ....................... 160,000 160,000
transferred out................... $288,000 $248,000 $536,000

4. Cost reconciliation:
($25,200 + $24,800) .................................. $ 50,000
($334,800 + $238,700) .............................. 573,500
Total cost to be accounted for ....................... $623,500
Cost of ending work in process inventory ...... $ 87,500
Cost of units completed and transferred out .. 536,000
Total cost accounted for ............................... $623,500

30 Managerial Accounting, 11th Canadian Edition
Case 6-18 (45 minutes)
1. The revised computations follow:
Quantity Schedule and Equivalent Units of Pro- Transferred

duction In Materials Conversion
Transferred to next department........................ 100,000 100,000 100,000
Transferred in: 5,000 units × 100% complete . 5,000
Materials: 5,000 units × 0% complete ............ 0
Conversion: 5,000 units × 2/5 complete .......... 2,000
Equivalent units of production .......................... 105,000 100,000 102,000
Costs per equivalent unit Transferred

In Materials Conversion
Cost of beginning work in process ................... $ 8,820 $ 3,400 $ 10,200
Cost added during the period .......................... 81,480 27,600 96,900
Total cost (a) ................................................. $90,300 $31,000 $107,100
Equivalent units of production (b) ................... 105,000 100,000 102,000
Cost per equivalent unit, (a) ÷ (b) .................. $0.86 $0.31 $1.05

Case 6-18 (continued)
Transferred
Cost reconciliation In Materials Conversion Total
Units transferred to the next department ......... 100,000 100,000 100,000
Cost per equivalent unit .................................. $0.86 $0.31 $1.05 $2.22
Cost of units completed and transferred out .... $86,000 $31,000 $105,000 $222,000
Equivalent units of production (see above) .. 5,000 0 2,000
Cost per equivalent unit ............................. $0.86 $0.31 $1.05
Cost of ending work in process inventory .... $4,300 $0 $2,100 $6,400
$228,400
2. The unit cost computed above is $2.22 (= $0.86 + $0.31 + $1.05) versus $2.284 on the original re-
port. The unit cost on the report prepared by the accountant is high because none of the cost in-
curred during the month was assigned to the units in the ending work in process inventory.

Case 6-19 (60 minutes)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rachel Archer

FROM: Ed Switzer
SUBJECT: Ending Work in Process and Finished Goods Inven-
tory Balances
As agreed, I have calculated the ending inventory balances to be included

in the Balance Sheet of Rachel’s Real Root Beer as at August 30. The calcu-
lations assume process costing using the weighted average method. My
calculations indicate an ending balance in Finished Goods Inventory of
$6,456 and an ending Work in Process balance of $1,944. Details of my
calculations are presented in the attached Production Report for the month
of August.

Rachel’s Real Root Beer
Production Report for August (weighted average method)
Quantity Schedule and Equivalent Units

Quantity
Work in process, August 1 (75%
complete for material, 60% for 550
conversion)
Total units 3,550
Equivalent Units
Transferred to Finished Goods 2,400 2,400 2,400
Work in process, August 30
(75% complete for material,
50% for conversion) 1,150 863 575
Total units and equivalent units 3,550 3,263 2,975
Cost per Equivalent Unit Total Cost Materials Conversion
Work in process, August 1 $1,080 $650 $430
Cost added during the month 7,320 3,840 3,480
Total cost $8,400 $4,490 $3,910
Cost per equivalent unit $1.38 $1.31
Total cost per equivalent unit $2.69
Cost reconciliation: Total Cost Materials Conversion

Cost accounted for as follows:
Transferred to Finished Goods
2,400 units x $2.69 $6,456 2,400 2,400
Work in process, August 30:
Materials at $1.38 per EU 1,191 863
Conversion at $1.31 per EU 753 575
Total Work in process, Aug 30 1,944
Total cost accounted for: $8,400
Appendix 6A – FIFO Method
Questions
6A-1 Under the weighted-average method, each unit transferred out of the department is counted as
one equivalent unit—regardless of in what period the work was done to complete the units. Under the
FIFO method, only the work done in the current period is counted. Units transferred out are divided into
two parts. One part consists of the units transferred out from beginning inventory. Only the work needed
to complete these units is shown as part of the equivalent units for the current period. The other part of
the units transferred out consists of the units started and completed during the current period.
6A-2 The weighted-average method mixes costs from the current period with costs from the prior peri-
od. Thus, under the weighted-average method, the department’s apparent performance in the current
period is influenced to some extent by what happened in a prior period. In contrast, the FIFO method
cleanly separates the costs and work of the current period from those of the prior period. This makes the
FIFO method superior to the weighted-average method for cost control because current performance
should be measured in relation to costs of the current period only.

Exercise 6A-1 (10 minutes)
FIFO Method
To complete beginning work in process:
Materials: 400 units × (100% – 75%)................. 100
Conversion: 400 units × (100% – 25%) ............. 300
Units started and completed during the period
(42,600 units started – 500 units in ending
inventory) ......................................................... 42,100 42,100
Ending work in process
Materials: 500 units × 80% complete ................. 400
Conversion: 500 units × 30% complete .............. 150

Exercise 6A-2(10 minutes)
FIFO method
Materials Labour Overhead Total

Cost added during May (a)..... $41,280 $26,460 $66,150
Equivalent units of
production (b) .................... 8,000 7,000 7,000
Cost per equivalent unit
(a) ÷ (b) ............................ $5.16 $3.78 $9.45 $18.39

Exercise 6A-3(15 minutes)
FIFO Method
Equivalent units of production ............... 800 200
Cost per equivalent unit ........................ $4.40 $1.30
Cost of ending work in process inventory $3,520 $260 $3,780
Units transferred out:

Cost in beginning work in process
inventory ......................................... $2,700 $380 $3,080
Cost to complete the units in beginning
work in process inventory:
Equivalent units of production required
to complete the beginning inventory 400 700
Cost per equivalent unit ...................... $4.40 $1.30
Cost to complete the units in beginning
inventory ....................................... $1,760 $910 2,670
Cost of units started and completed this period:
Units started and completed this period
(8,000 units completed and trans-
ferred to the next department –
1,000 units in beginning work in
process inventory) .......................... 7,000 7,000
Cost per equivalent unit ...................... $4.40 $1.30
Cost of units started and completed
this period ..................................... $30,800 $9,100 39,900
Total cost of units transferred out .......... $45,650

FIFO Method
1. Materials Labour Overhead

Materials: 80,000 litres ×
(100% − 80%) ................................ 16,000
Labour: 80,000 litres ×
(100% − 75%) ................................ 20,000
Overhead: 80,000 litres ×
(100% − 75%) ................................ 20,000
Units started and completed during the
period (790,000 – 80,000) ................... 710,000 710,000 710,000
Materials 50,000 litres × 60% .............. 30,000
Labour: 50,000 litres × 20% ................ 10,000
Overhead: 50,000 litres × 20% ............ 10,000
Equivalent units of production ................ 756,000 740,000 740,000
2. Materials Labour Overhead

Cost added during the period (a) ............
$907,200 $370,000 $592,000
Equivalent units of production (b) ...........756,000 740,000 740,000
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b) ......... `
$1.2 $0.5 $0.8

FIFO method
1. Computation of the total cost per equivalent unit of production:
Cost per equivalent unit of production for material ............. $18.20
Cost per equivalent unit of production for conversion ......... 23.25
Total cost per equivalent unit of production ....................... $41.45
2. Computation of equivalent units in ending inventory:

Units in ending inventory ......... 300 300
Percentage completed ............. 80 % 40 %
Equivalent units of production .. 240 120
3. Computation of equivalent units required to complete the beginning in-

ventory:
Units in beginning inventory..... 400 400
Percentage uncompleted ......... 30 % 70 %
Equivalent units of production .. 120 280
4. Units transferred to the next department ............. 4,400

Less units from the beginning inventory .............. 400
Units started and completed during the period ..... 4,000

Exercise 6A-5 (continued)
5. Materials Conversion Total
Equivalent units of production ................................................... 240 120
Cost per equivalent unit ............................................................ $18.20 $23.25
Cost of ending work in process inventory ................................... $4,368 $2,790 $7,158
Cost from the beginning work in process inventory..................... $4,897 $2,989 $7,886
Cost to complete the units in beginning work in process inventory:
Equivalent units of production required to complete the units
in beginning inventory....................................................... 120 280
Cost per equivalent unit ....................................................... $18.20 $23.25
Cost to complete the units in beginning inventory .................. $2,184 $6,510 8,694
Units started and completed this period................................. 4,000 4,000
Cost per equivalent unit ....................................................... $18.20 $23.25
Cost of units started and completed this period...................... $72,800 $93,000 165,800
Total cost of units transferred out ............................................. $182,380

FIFO Method
Labour &
Materials Overhead
To complete the beginning work in process:
Materials: 25,000 litres × (100% − 100%) ........... 0
Labour and overhead:
25,000 litres × (100% − 35%) .......................... 16,250
Litres started and completed during October
(25,000 litres started − 5,000 litres in ending in-
ventory) ............................................................. 20,000 20,000
plete ................................................................ 3,500

Problem 6A-7 (45 minutes)
FIFO method
Materials: 50,000 units × (100% − 75%) ...... 12,500
Conversion: 50,000 units × (100% − 30%) ... 35,000
(430,000 units started − 100,000 units in
ending inventory) .......................................... 330,000 330,000
Materials: 100,000 units × 60% complete ..... 60,000
Conversion: 100,000 units × 40% complete .. 40,000
Equivalent units of production ........................... 402,500 405,000

Cost added during the period (a) .............. $425,500 $145,000
Equivalent units of production (b) ............. 402,500 405,000
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b) ............. $1.057 $0.358
3. See the next page.
($45,500 + $25,000).......................................... $ 70,500
($425,500 + $145,000) ...................................... 570,500
Total cost to be accounted for ................................ $641,000
Cost of ending work in process inventory ................ $ 77,740
Costs of units transferred out ................................. 563,193
Total cost accounted for ........................................ *$640,933
*Off $67 due to rounding.

Problem 6A-7 (continued)
3. Costs of Ending Work in Process Inventory and Units Transferred Out
Equivalent units of production ................................................. 60,000 40,000
Cost per equivalent unit .......................................................... $1.057 $0.358
Cost of ending work in process inventory ................................. $63,420 $14,320 $77,740
Cost in beginning work in process inventory ............................ $45,500 $25,000 $70,500
Equivalent units of production required to complete the be-
ginning inventory ............................................................ 12,500 35,000
Cost per equivalent unit ..................................................... $1.057 $0.358
Cost to complete the units in beginning inventory ................ $13,213 $12,530 25,743
Units started and completed this period .............................. 330,000 330,000
Cost of units started and completed this period ................... $348,810 $118,140 466,950
Cost of units transferred out ................................................... $563,193

FIFO Method
Materials: 50,000 units × (100% − 60%) ...... 20,000
Conversion: 50,000 units × (100% − 30%) ... 35,000
(500,000 units started − 60,000 units in end-
ing inventory) ............................................... 440,000 440,000
Materials: 60,000 units × 80% complete ....... 48,000
Conversion: 60,000 units × 40% complete .... 24,000

($17,000 + $3,000) ............................................ $ 20,000
($457,200+ $349,300) ....................................... 806,500

Total cost accounted for ........................................ $826,500


ginning inventory ............................................................ 20,000 35,000
Cost to complete the units in beginning inventory ................ $18,000 $24,500 42,500

Cost of units started and completed this period ................... $396,000 $308,000 704,000

FIFO method
Materials: 20,000 units x (100% − 100%) ..... 0
Conversion: 20,000 units x (100% − 75%) .... 5,000
(180,000 units started − 40,000 units in end-
ing inventory) ............................................... 140,000 140,000
Materials: 40,000 units x 100% complete ...... 40,000
Conversion: 40,000 units x 25% complete ..... 10,000

($25,200 + $24,800) .......................................... $ 50,000
($334,800 + $238,700) ...................................... 573,500
Total cost accounted for ........................................ $623,500

Solutions Manual, Chapter 6
ginning inventory ............................................................ 0 5,000
Cost to complete the units in beginning inventory ................ $0 $7,700 $7,700
Cost of units started and completed this period ................... $260,400 $215,600 $476,000

Case 6A-10 (60 minutes)
FIFO Method
1.
Transferred In Materials Conversion
Transferred in: 8,000 units × 0% .................................. 0
Materials: 8,000 units × 0% ......................................... 0
Conversion: 8,000 units × (1 − 7/8).............................. 1,000
Units completed during the period (100,000 units started −
8,000 units in beginning inventory) ................................ 92,000 92,000 92,000
Transferred in: 5,000 units x 100% complete 5,000
Materials: 5,000 units × 0% complete ........................... 0
Conversion: 5,000 units × 2/5 complete ........................ 2,000
Equivalent units of production ........................................... 97,000 92,000 95,000
Transferred In Materials Conversion

Cost added during the period (a) ....................................... $81,480 $27,600 $96,900
Equivalent units of production (b) ...................................... 97,000 92,000 95,000
Cost per equivalent unit (a) ÷ (b) ...................................... $0.84 $0.30 $1.02

Case 6A-10 (continued)
Transferred In Materials Conversion Total
Equivalent units of production .......................... 5,000 0 2,000
Cost per equivalent unit ................................... $0.84 $0.30 $1.02
Cost of ending work in process inventory .......... $4,200 $0 $2,040 $6,240
Cost in beginning work in process inventory ..... $8,820 $3,400 $10,200 $22,420
Cost to complete units in beginning work in process inventory:
Equivalent units of production required to
complete the beginning inventory (see
above) .................................................... 0 0 1,000
Cost per equivalent unit .............................. $0.84 $0.30 $1.02
Cost to complete units in beginning
inventory................................................. $0 $0 $1,020 $1,020
Units started and completed this period ....... 92,000 92,000 92,000
Cost per equivalent unit .............................. $0.84 $0.30 $1.02
Cost of units started and completed this
period ..................................................... $77,280 $27,600 $93,840 $198,720
Cost of units transferred out ............................ $222,160
2. The effects of the cost-cutting will tend to show up more under the FIFO method. The reason is that
the FIFO method keeps the costs of the current period separate from the costs of the prior period.
Thus, under the FIFO method, the company will be able to compare unit costs of the current period
to those of the prior period to see how effective the cost-cutting program has been. Under the
weighted-average method, however, costs carried over from the prior period are averaged in with
costs of the current period, which will tend to mask somewhat the effects of the cost-cutting effort.
Case 6A-11 (60 minutes)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rachel Archer

FROM: Ed Switzer
SUBJECT: Ending Work in Process and Finished Goods Inven-
tory Balances
As agreed, I have calculated the ending inventory balances to be included

in the Balance Sheet of Rachel’s Real Root Beer as at August 30. The calcu-
lations assume process costing using the FIFO method. My calculations in-
dicate an ending balance in Finished Goods Inventory of $6,513 and an
ending Work in Process balance of $1,919. Details of my calculations are
presented in the attached Production Report for the month of August.
© McGraw-Hill Eduation Ltd. 2018. All rights reserved.

Rachel’s Real Root Beer

Production Report for August (FIFO Method)
Quantity Schedule and Equivalent Units

Quantity
Work in process, August 1 (75%
complete for material, 60% for 550
conversion)
Total units 3,550
Equivalent Units
Transferred to Finished Good:
From Beg. inventory (Aug 1) 550
Materials (550 x (100%-75%) 138
Conversion (550 x (100%-60%) 220
Started and completed in period
(3,000 started - ending inv 1,150) 1,850 1,850 1,850
Work in process, August 30 (1,150
units 75% complete for material,
50% for conversion) 1,150 863 575
Total and Equivalent units 3,550 2,851 2,645
Cost per Equivalent Unit Total Cost Materials Conversion

Costs in beginning inventory $1,080
Cost added during the month 7,320 3,840 3,480
Total cost $8,400 $3,840 $3,480
Cost per equivalent unit $1.347 $1.316
Total cost per equivalent unit $2.663

Equivalent Units
Cost reconciliation: Total Cost Materials Conversion
Cost accounted for as follows:
Costs in Beginning inventory $1080
Costs to complete these units
Materials at $1.347 per EU $186 138
Conversion at $1.316 per EU $290 220
Total costs from beg. inventory $1,556
Started and completed this period
1,850 units x $2.663 $4,957
Work in process, August 30:
Materials at $1.347 per EU $1,162 863
Conversion at $1.316 per EU 757 575
Total Work in process, Aug 30 1,919
Total cost accounted for: $8,432*
* $32 difference due to rounding
© McGraw-Hill Eduation Ltd. 2018. All rights reserved.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Tariff Speech of Samuel J. Randall.
Delivered in the House of Representatives, May 18, 1888.

He opened by referring to the President’s recent message, in which
the Executive advised Congress that the surplus in the Treasury by
the 30th of June, at the end of the current fiscal year, would be
expected to reach the sum of $140,000,000, including prior
accumulations; or more closely stated, the sum of $113,000,000,
apart from prior accumulations, over and above all authorized
expenditures, including the sinking fund for the current year.
He then quoted from the President’s message defining his position
on the tariff and internal revenue questions, and said that, from the
utterances of the President, he understands the Executive to be
adverse to any reduction of the internal taxes, as that mode of
taxation afforded, in the opinion of the President, “no just complaint,
and that nothing is so well able to bear the burden without hardship
to any portion of the people.”
The President further said that the tariff law was a vicious and
illegal source of inequitable tax, and ought to be revised and
modified, and the President had urged upon Congress the immediate
consideration of this matter to the exclusion of all others. The
President had asserted in substance that the reduction necessary
should be made by additions to the free list, and by the lowering of
the rates of duty.
In the presence of such language, emanating from the Executive,
authorized by the direction of the Constitution to communicate and
from time to time give to Congress information on the state of the
Union, and recommend such measures as he should judge necessary,
it was imperatively required of the representatives of the people to
give fair, intelligent, and prompt attention to the suggestions made.
He had done so.
He had introduced and had referred to the Committee on Ways
and Means a bill to reduce and equalize duties on imports and to
reduce the internal revenue taxes, and some provisions of that bill
showed that the remedies he would apply were at variance with those
recommended by the President. The President sought to prevent the
continuation of the surplus revenue by resorting to changes in the
customs duties only.
The remedy he (Randall) proposed was through the repeal of
internal revenue taxes as well as by a full revision of the tariff, as
promised to the people by the Democratic Convention of 1884. The
reduction provided for in his bill aggregated $77,000,000 on
internal taxes.
Those taxes had always been the last to be levied, and the first to
be repealed when no longer necessary.
Jefferson had given the death-blow to excise taxes, that most
vicious of all taxes, and among the things he received the thanks of
the Legislature of his native State for doing, was for having the
internal taxes abolished. The first tax also to be repealed after the
War of 1812 had been the excise tax, which was recommended by
Madison, and was the first law enacted under the administration of
Monroe. The Democratic Convention of 1884 declared that internal
revenue was a war tax, and this declaration, taken in connection with
the other declarations of the platform, clearly established the fact
that the opinion of the Convention was that some of the internal
revenue taxes should first go, and that they should all go whenever a
sufficient sum was realized from custom-house taxes to meet the
expenses of the Government economically administered.
The country was practically in such a condition now, and the true
response to those declarations warranted the repeal of the internal
revenue taxes to the extent proposed by his bill. He favored now, as
he had always done, a total repeal of the internal revenue taxes.
In the bill which he introduced he proposed to sweep all these
taxes from the statute books, except a tax of fifty cents on whiskey,
and he would transfer the collection of that tax to the customs
officials if that was found to be practicable.
With Albert Gallatin, he regarded excise taxes as offensive to the
genius of the people, tolerated only as a measure of emergency, and
as soon as the occasion for them had passed away they should cease
to exist.
Gallatin and Jefferson had secured the repeal of the internal taxes,
and relieved the people from their annoyances and the hordes of
officials clothed with dangerous power. If this internal revenue
system was abolished to-day we would have no surplus revenue to
scare the country, while the administration of public affairs would be
rendered purer and better. His bill proposed a revision of the tariff
on the principle believed to be in harmony with the authorized
declarations of the Democratic party in their last convention.
Those declarations clearly recognized the fact that a difference
existed in the cost of production of commodities in this and other
countries on account of a higher rate of wages in the United States,
and declared for a duty ample to cover that difference. There was a
cardinal principle which must cover every intelligent revision of the
tariff. Labor in this country received a much larger share of what was
annually produced than in any other country, and this advantage to
labor could only be maintained by giving to the industries protection
equal to that difference.
He quoted from Edward Atkinson that since the end of the Civil
War, and yet more since the so-called panic of 1873, there had been
greater progress in the common welfare among the people of the
United States than ever before. The statements of Mr. Atkinson
would seem to settle the question as to whether we should adhere to
the benevolent policy of protecting home manufactures. It
demonstrated unmistakably the truth that, to increase wages,
products must be increased, for in the end wages were but the
laborer’s share of products.
While a dollar might buy more in another country than here, a
day’s labor here would obtain more of the comforts of life than
anywhere else. Under free trade this advantage to labor disappeared.
It was impossible it should be otherwise. If the tariff itself did not
give higher wages to the laborer, it did preserve from foreign
competition the industries from which the laborer received his
wages. He wished to refer to a few fundamental propositions which
had been maintained throughout this debate, and which appeared to
exercise and control influence over the opinion of men.
First. That the duties were always added to the price to the
consumer.
On articles not produced in this country, this doubtless was true as
a general rule, and measurably true on articles in part produced in
this country, but not in sufficient quantities to supply the home
market. But on all commodities produced in sufficient quantities to
supply the home market, a different principle controlled. In these
things competition determined the price, and the foreign producer
came into this market, where the prices were fixed, and the duties
were what he paid for the privilege of coming into the market.
Another erroneous proposition was that duties on articles produced
in this country were a tax or bounty which the consumer paid to the
manufacturer, by means of which the manufacturer derived large
profits. If this were true, it was not easy to see what justification
there was for the committee bill any more than for the present tariff
law. But that it was erroneous seemed apparent on a closer
examination of the laws of trade. Adam Smith long ago had laid
down the proposition that larger profits in one industry than in
another could not long prevail in the same country. The United
States formed a world of its own. Would it be possible that one class
of consumers would pay a perpetual tax to another?
Suppose last year we had manufactured $1,000,000,000 worth of
products less than we actually did, and had gone abroad to supply
our deficiency, expecting to pay for the goods with our agricultural
products—we had sold Europe last year all of the wheat and corn the
continent could take—who could tell what prices Europe would have
paid if we had thrown upon her markets $1,000,000,000 worth of
agricultural products in excess of the quantity we had sold. The
farmer and manufacturer in this country must depend almost
exclusively upon our home market.
Any other policy would mean ruin and bankruptcy to the country.
The greater the producing power of the people the more independent
and wealthy would the country be.
Mr. Randall next entered into an explanation of the principles
upon which his bill had been constructed. He said that in fixing the
duties the rates had been adjusted as nearly as possible to cover the
difference in the margin of cost of production here and abroad. In
working out the details of the bill it had been his purpose to lower
duties wherever possible.
Between the extreme free trader on one hand and a prohibitory
tariff on the other there were intermediate positions. One of them
was to fix a revenue line on imports just high enough to realize a
sufficient revenue for the needs of the Government. Another was to
make the tariff sufficiently high to cover the difference of cost of
production in this country and other countries. To lower the rate of
duty when that line was passed must be to increase the revenue. To
raise the rate of duty when the line of maximum revenue was
reached would result in a decrease of duty.
Any computation that did not take these facts into account would
be utterly worthless. It might safely be assumed that when the
importation of any line of merchandise steadily increased from year
to year, and there was no good reason why those goods could not be
produced in this country, and the result of the increased
importations had been to suppress our manufactures, it was proof
positive that the duty should be increased.
Otherwise it might be assumed that the duties were quite high
enough. And when the duties were high enough to permit the
existence of trusts to raise the prices of the commodity, the duty
should be reduced as closely as possible to the line. He stated
distinctly that if it could be made to appear in any case that the
measure he proposed conferred more protection than was needed to
cover the cost of production, he was ready to lower it. If in any
instance the rate was too low to cover that cost, he was ready to raise
it.
Monopolies existed without the tariff. The standard oil trust, the
whiskey trust, and the cotton-seed oil trust, and others that he could
mention—the greatest trusts in the whole country—were not
protected by the tariff. He was for the protection of labor, not in one
State merely, but in all States.
He was for the protection and maintenance of that system that
allows to labor a larger proportionate share of its products than was
realized in any other country or under any other system.
The late Secretary Manning had signalized his accession to the
control of the Treasury Department by a more thorough examination
of the economic questions of the day than had been made by any of
his predecessors. His reports and public utterances were marvels of
honest, conscientious, and effective labor.
He had strongly urged the necessity for the substitution of specific
for ad valorem duties. The Custom House officers charged with the
collection of the revenues had given valuable and emphatic
testimony in favor of the change. The present Secretary of the
Treasury had taken the same grounds. (At this point Mr. Randall
quoted extensively from Secretary Fairchild’s utterances on the
subject. He then proceeded with his description of the objects of his
own bill.) Certain provisions of the metal schedules, he said, had
been very sharply assailed, and he devoted some time to answering
the speakers who had attacked his measure.
He took up the schedules relating to steel rails, and quoted figures
at length to sustain his action in fixing the duties at the rates he
proposed in his bill. The duty on cotton ties, he said, was one of the
inconsistencies of the present tariff. It was only fair that they should
pay a duty as hoop iron and as an article of manufacture. The present
law was a positive discrimination against the home manufacturer
and in favor of the foreign producer. The rate of wages in England in
cotton tie manufactories was hardly one-half of the wages paid in
such manufactories in Pittsburg.
He then proceeded to a criticism of the committee bill as follows:
A declared purpose of this bill is to secure “free raw materials to
stimulate manufactories.”
In execution of this idea, the bill places on the free list a large
number of articles which are really manufactured articles, such as
salt, sawed and dressed lumber, glue, various oils and chemicals,
china, clay, etc. These constitute the products of large and useful
industries throughout the United States in which many millions of
capital are invested, and employing many thousands of working
people. At the same time the bill leaves or puts upon the dutiable list,
lead, iron, zinc and nickel ores, and coal, which might be called raw
materials. Further than this, the bill not only makes so-called “raw
materials” free, but places on the free list the manufactured products
of these materials. Thus the manufacture of such articles is made
impossible in this country, except by reducing American labor to a
worse condition than that of labor in Europe. It goes even further,
and places or leaves dutiable certain so-called raw materials, such as
iron ore, lead, coal, paper, paints, etc., while placing on the free list
articles made from these materials, such as hoop iron and cotton
ties, tin plates, machinery, books and pamphlets, etc.
In other words, the bill leaves or makes dutiable the raw material
and puts on the free list the articles manufactured from it; thus not
only placing an insurmountable barrier in the way of making such
articles here, but actually protecting the foreign manufacturer and
laborer against our own, and imposing for their benefit a burden
upon the consumer in this country. Again, the bill places lower rates
on some manufactured articles than on the raw materials used in
making them. For instance, type metal, 15 per cent.; pig lead, 44 per
cent.; carpets, 30 per cent.; yarns used in their manufacture, 40 per
cent.
It leaves an internal revenue tax of more than 100 per cent. on
alcohol used in the arts, amounting to as much as the entire amount
of duty collected on raw wool. This article enters as a material into a
vast number of important and needful articles which the committee
have either made free or have so reduced the rates thereon that the
duty would be less than the tax on the alcohol consumed in their
manufacture.
In some cases, the difference between the duty imposed by the bill
on the so called raw materials and the articles made from them is so
small as to destroy these industries, except upon the condition of
levelling the wages of home labor to that of Europe. This was so in
the case of pig lead and red lead, which is made from it, and of pig
iron and steel blooms and steel rails.
Such legislation would leave the ore in the mines, or the pig lead in
the smelting works, or the pig iron to rust at the furnaces, while
foreigners would supply our markets with these manufactured
products. In a large number of articles throughout the schedules the
reductions proposed by the bill are so large that the effect must be to
destroy or restrict home production and increase enormously foreign
importations, thus largely increasing customs revenue instead of
reducing it, as claimed by the advocates of the bill. Particular
mention in this connection is made of earthen and chinaware, glass,
leaf tobacco, manufactures of cotton, flax, hemp, and jute, carpets,
brushes, leather, gloves, manufactures of India rubber, and pipes.
Mr. Randall asserted that instead of the bill reducing customs
revenues $64,000,000, as was claimed, it would be fair to estimate
that its effect would be to largely increase the revenue, instead of
reducing it, while the amount of material wealth it would destroy is
incalculable.
Those supporting the bill, he said, hold themselves out as the
champions of the farmer, while they take from him the protection
duties on his wool, hemp, flax, meats, vegetables, etc. And what do
they give him in return. They profess to give the manufacturer better
rates than he now has. If this be so, how is the farmer to be benefited,
or where does he get compensation for the loss of his protective
duties?
Much has been said about removing taxes on necessaries and
imposing them upon luxuries. What does this bill propose? It gives
olive oil to the epicure and taxes castor oil 95 per cent.; it gives free
tin plates to the Standard Oil Company and to the great meat-
canning monopolies, and imposes a duty of 100 per cent. on rice; it
gives the sugar trust free bone-black and proposes prohibitory duties
on grocery grades of sugar; it imposes a duty of 40 per cent. on the
“poor man’s” blanket and only 30 per cent. on the Axminster carpet
of the rich; it admits free of duty the fine animals imported by the
gentlemen of the turf, makes free the paintings and statuary of the
railway millionaire and coal baron.
Mr. Randall said he yielded to no man on his side of the House in
his desire for continued Democratic control in the administration of
the Federal Government. He did not believe the adoption of the
committee’s bill would make such result certain, and added:
“I cannot be coerced into any particular action upon economic questions by the
direction of party caucus. The period of the political caucus has departed never to
return, and yet we should confer and have unity, if it is possible.
“In these matters I speak only for myself. My convictions on the tariff are strong,
and founded, as I think, upon principle, and upon information and intelligent
comprehension of the subject. When any one here enters upon the task of invoking
caucus power or other modes of coercion, I can only say to him, if he acts with
good purpose, that it will prove a fruitless undertaking; or if with ill motive, then I
consign him to all the natural contempt which such self-constituted
superciliousness deserves.”
In conclusion, Mr. Randall quoted from the earliest statesmen in
support of his views upon the tariff, and said:
“If Jackson could say he was confirmed in his opinions by the opinions of
Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, how much more am I confirmed in my opinions
by his great authority added to that of the founders and builders of the Democratic
party? I warn the party that it is not safe to abandon principles so fundamental to
our institutions and so necessary to the maintenance of our industrial system;
principles which attest the wisdom of those who established them by the fruits they
have borne, the full fruition of which, however, can only be realized in the
extension of diversified industries to all parts of the country, not in the North and
East alone, but in the South and West as well. A new era of industrial enterprise
has already dawned upon the South; no section of the country possesses greater
natural advantages than the South, with her genial climate, her limitless raw
materials, her mines of coal and iron, with abundant labor ready to develop them.
Considering what has been there achieved in a single decade, what may not a
century bring forth from her under a system calculated to favor the highest
industrial development? When I read the history of my country and consider the
past and present, and reflect on what is before us, I cannot believe that the idea
that went down in the convulsions of 1861 will ever again dominate the destinies of
the Republic.”
Tariff Speech of Major Wm. McKinley, Jr.,
Member of Congress from Ohio.

In the great tariff campaign of 1888 the two most distinguished
Republican speakers were Mr. Blaine and Major McKinley. The latter
was invited by the Chautauqua Society of Georgia to explain the
doctrine of Protection, and did so in the following comprehensive
speech:
Fellow-citizens: I make my acknowledgments to the Piedmont

Society for the courtesy and cordiality of its invitation, which has
given me the opportunity to meet, for the first time, an assemblage of
the citizens of Georgia.
I have come, upon the suggestion of the committee, to address you
upon a public question of great national import, which concerns not
only the prosperity of one section, but of all sections of our common
country, and which is of commanding interest to our sixty millions of
people. It is no new subject which I propose to consider. It is as old
as government by men. Taxation, with few exceptions, has been the
chief and absorbing issue for more than a century of the republic.
A revenue tariff is such a one as will produce the largest revenue
from the lowest duty. The lowest rate of duty will encourage
importations, diminish home production, and inevitably increase the
revenue. It will, of necessity, check competition at home, and send
our merchants abroad to buy; it affords no protection, not even
incidental, for the very instant that you discover that such duty
favors the home producer, that instant you discover that
importations and revenue are checked, and that our own producers
are able to control the home market or a part of it. Then at once the
advocate of a revenue tariff reduces the duty, brings it down to the
true revenue standard, for it must not be overlooked, according to
the free trade maxim, “where protection begins, revenue ends,” and
the question of revenue is always controlling. A revenue tariff is
inconsistent with protection; it is intended for a wholly different
purpose. It loses its force and character as a genuine revenue tariff
when it becomes to any extent protective. It has but one object. It can
have but one effect—that of opening up our markets to the foreign
producer—impoverishing the home producer and enriching his
foreign rival.
England is more nearly a free trade country than any other, and
her system of taxation furnishes an unmistakable example of the
practice and principle of a revenue tariff. Her import duties are
imposed almost exclusively upon articles which cannot be produced
by her own people upon her own soil. Tobacco, snuff, cigars, chicory,
cocoa, currants, figs, raisins, rum, brandy, wine, tea, and coffee—
these are the articles from which her customs revenue is derived—
articles, in the main, not produced in England, but which must be
supplied from abroad; while, practically, all competing products of
foreign make and production are admitted through her custom-
house free of duty.
A brief statement of the dutiable imports of Great Britain will not
be without interest.
It will be observed that her duties are more largely imposed upon
the peculiar American products than upon any others. The duty upon
tobacco is, according to moisture, from 84 to 92 cents per pound for
the raw or unmanufactured article; and, if manufactured, it pays a
duty of from $1.04 to $1.16 per pound. The manufactured article is
made dutiable at 20 cents a pound greater than the raw product,
which, with all of England’s boasted free trade, is intended as a
protection to those engaged in the manipulation of tobacco. It is
almost prohibitive to Americans who would export manufactured
tobacco. The ad valorem equivalent of the duty on tobacco is nearly
2000 per cent. Cigars pay a duty of $1.32 per pound, and from
tobacco and snuff over $43,000,000 of duties are collected annually.
The duty on tea is 12 cents a pound. How would the Americans enjoy
paying such a duty upon this article of everyday use? The duty
collected from this source is over $18,000,000 annually. Coffee pays
a duty of 3 cents a pound; but, if ground, prepared, or in any way
manufactured, it must pay a duty of 4 cents a pound—another
example of where England protects those engaged in manufacture.
Cocoa pays a duty of 2 cents a pound, but if it is in any form
subjected to manufacture it pays 4 cents a pound, the duty on the
manufactured article being double that on the raw material.
Besides the articles named, there are about ninety or a hundred
others, chiefly of American production, patented and other
medicines, which are dutiable at $3.36 per gallon. More than
$96,000,000, or nearly one-fourth of the British revenues, are
raided from customs duties.
You will note the character of taxation to which the revenue
reformer invites the people of the United States. Both the breakfast
table and the sick room are made to bear a large part of the burden
under the British system of taxation. It is not without significance
that the nearer we approach this system the more generous the
bestowal of British commendation. Every step we take in that
direction, every enlargement of the free list of competing foreign
products, every reduction of duty upon such products is hailed as a
vindication of Cobden and a beneficence to British interests. It is in
vain for the British statesman to assure us that their system is best
for us. We are not accustomed to look to our commercial rivals for
disinterested favors. “It is folly,” said Washington in his farewell
address, “for one nation to look for disinterested favors from
another; that it must pay, with a portion of its independence, for
whatever it may accept under that character. There can be no greater
error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to
nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, and which a just
pride ought to discard.” We are not insensible to the good opinion of
mankind and of the English-speaking race, but when it is to be had
only at the expense of our industrial independence, at the sacrifice of
the dignity and independence of labor and the destruction of
national prosperity, we must regard it with supreme suspicion, and
turn from it as the eulogy of selfish interest and the commendation
of interested greed.
The other theory of taxation, and the one which I believe to be
essential to American development and national prosperity, is based
upon an exactly opposite principle. It permits all articles of foreign
production, whether of the field, the factory, or the mine, except
luxuries only, which we cannot produce in the United States, to enter
our ports free and unburdened by custom-house exactions. The duty
is to be imposed upon the foreign competing product; that is, the
product which, if brought into this country, would contend with the
products of our own soil, our own labor, and our own factories, in
our own markets. Under this system, if the foreign producer would
enter our market with a competing product, he must contribute
something for the privilege which he is to enjoy, and this something,
in the form of duties, goes into the Treasury, furnishing revenue to
the Government; and these duties operate to protect the joint
product of labor and capital against a like foreign product.
This mode of levying duties answers a double purpose. It produces
revenue to the Government, and at the same time fosters and
encourages the occupations of our own people, promotes industrial
development, opens up new mines, builds new factories, and
sustains those already established, which in turn furnish
employment to labor at fair and remunerative wages. A revenue tariff
accomplishes but a single purpose—that of raising revenue; it has no
other mission; while a protective tariff accomplishes this and more—
it brings revenue to the American treasury and discriminates in favor
of the American citizen. A revenue tariff invites the product of
foreign labor and foreign capital to occupy our markets free and
unrestrained in competition with the product of our own labor and
capital. A protective tariff invites the product of foreign labor and
foreign capital which are necessary to the wants of our people (which
we cannot produce in the United States) to occupy our markets and
go untaxed to the people, but insists that every foreign product which
is produced at home, or can be, successfully, in quantities capable of
supplying the domestic consumption, shall, whenever necessary to
maintain suitable rewards to our labor, bear a duty which shall not
be so high as to prohibit importations, but at such a rate as will
produce the necessary revenues and, at the same time, not destroy
but encourage American production. It says to the world of
producers: “If you want to share with the citizens of the United
States their home market, you must pay for the privilege of doing it.
Your product shall not enter into free and unrestrained competition
with the product of our own people, but shall be discriminated
against to such an extent as to fully protect and defend our own.”
It is alleged as a serious objection to protective duties that the tax,
whatever it may be, increases the cost of the foreign as well as the
domestic product to the extent of such tax or duty, and that it is
wholly paid by the consumer. This objection would be worthy of
serious consideration if it were true; but, as has been demonstrated
over and over again, it is without foundation in fact. Wherever the
foreign product has successful competition at home, the duty is
rarely paid by the consumer. It is paid from the profits of the
manufacturer, or divided between him and the merchant or the
importer, and diminishes their profit to that extent. Duty or no duty,
without home competition the consumer would fare worse than he
fares now. There is not in the long line of staple products consumed
by the people a single one which has not been cheapened by
competition at home, made possible by protective duties. There is
not an article that enters into the everyday uses of the family, which
is produced in the United States, that has not been made cheaper
and more accessible as the result of home production and
development, which was to be secured only by the sturdy
maintenance of the protective system. While this is true of protective
tariffs, exactly the opposite is true of revenue tariffs. They are always
paid by the consumer. When a duty is put on a foreign product the
like of which is not produced at home, and which enters our markets
free from home competition, the cost to the American consumer is
exactly the foreign cost with the duty added, whatever that may be,
much or little. Supposing, for example, there was a tax upon tea and
coffee. There being no production of these articles in the United
States, and therefore no competition here, the cost to the American
public would be the cost abroad and the duty added. We imported
last year 526,489,000 pounds of coffee. A duty of 10 cents a pound
would have produced to the Government over $52,000,000, which
would have been paid by the 12,000,000 families of this country,
consumers of this article; 87,584,000 pounds of tea were imported
last year; at 10 cents a pound, $8,000,000 and upward would have
gone into the Treasury, every dollar of which would have been paid
by our own people. Take sugar as another example. We produced last
year in this country about eight per cent. of what our people
consumed. The duty collected from imported sugar amounted to
$58,000,000. The domestic production was so inconsiderable as
compared with the domestic consumption as to have had little, if
any, appreciable effect upon the price to the consumer, and therefore
this sum was almost wholly paid by our own citizens, and the cost of
sugar to the American consumer, because of the inadequate home
supply, is practically the foreign price, duty added, the domestic
production being so small contrasted with the domestic demand that
it in no wise controlled or influenced the price.
The revenue tariff periods of our history have been periods of
greatest financial revulsions and industrial decadence, want, and
poverty among the people, private enterprises checked and public
works retarded. From 1833 to 1842, under the low tariff legislation
then prevailing, business was at a standstill, and our merchants and
traders were bankrupted; our industries were paralyzed, our labor
remained idle, and our capital was unemployed. Foreign products
crowded our markets, destroyed domestic competition, and, as
invariably follows, the prices of commodities to consumers were
appreciably raised. It is an instructive fact that every panic this
country has ever experienced has been preceded by enormous
importations. From 1846 to 1861 a similar situation was presented
under the low tariff of that period.
Contrast this period with the period from 1860 to 1880, the former
under a revenue tariff, the latter under a protective tariff. In 1860 we
had 163,000,000 acres of improved land, while in 1880 we had
287,000,000, an increase of 75 per cent. In 1860 our farms were
valued at $3,200,000,000; in 1880 the value had leaped to
$10,197,000,000, an increase of over 300 per cent. In 1860 we
raised 173,000,000 bushels of wheat; in 1880, 498,000,000. In
1860 we raised 838,000,000 bushels of corn; in 1880, 1,717,000,000
bushels. In 1860 we produced 5,000,000 bales of cotton; in 1880,
7,600,000 bales, an increase of 40 per cent. In 1860 we
manufactured cotton goods to the value of $115,681,774; in 1880 the
value reached $211,000,000, an increase of upward of 80 per cent.
In 1860 we manufactured of woollen goods $61,000,000; in 1880,
$267,000,000, an increase of 333 per cent. In 1860 we produced
60,000,000 pounds of wool; in 1880, 240,000,000 pounds, an
increase of nearly 300 per cent. In 1860 we mined 15,000,000 tons
of coal; in 1880, 79,000,000 tons, an increase of over 400 per cent.
In 1860 we made 987,000 tons of pig iron; in 1880, 3,835,000 tons.
In 1860 we manufactured 235,000 tons of railroad iron, and in 1880,
1,208,000 tons. In 1860 our aggregate of national wealth was
$16,159,000,000; in 1880 it was $43,000,000,000.
From 1848 to 1860, during the low tariff period, there was but a
single year in which we exported in excess of what we imported. The
balance of trade during twelve of the thirteen years was against us.
Our people were drained of their money to pay for foreign purchases.
We sent abroad, over and above our sales, $396,216,161. This vast
sum was drawn from the United States, from its business, from the
channels of trade, which would have been better employed in
productive enterprises, and thus supplied our wants for which we
were compelled to go abroad. During the last thirteen years, under a
protective tariff, there was but one year that the balance of trade was
against us. For twelve years we sold to our foreign customers in
excess of what we bought from them $1,612,659,755.
This contrast makes an interesting exhibit of the work under the
two systems. You need not be told that the government and the
people are most prosperous whose balance of trade is in their favor.
The government is like the citizen; indeed, it is but an aggregation of
citizens; and when the citizen buys more than he sells, he is soon
conscious that his year’s business has not been a success.
Our wealth increases $875,000,000 every year, while the increase
of France is $375,000,000, Great Britain $325,000,000, and
Germany $200,000,000. The total carrying capacity of all the vessels
entered and cleared from American ports during the year 1886–7 in
the foreign trade was 28,000,000 tons. The amount of freight
transported by the railroads of the United States was alone
482,000,000 tons during the same period.
The sum of our industries exceeds that of any other people, or
tribe, or nationality. Mulhall, the English statistician, places the
industries of the United States at $11,405,000,000 annually, which
is $2,205,000,000 greater than those of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain, nearly twice those of France or Germany, nearly three
times those of Russia, and almost equal to the aggregated industries
of Austria, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Australia, Canada, and
Sweden and Norway.
This advancement is the world’s wonder. The nations of the earth
cannot furnish such a splendid exhibition of progress in any age or
period. We defy a revenue tariff policy to present such an exhibition
of material prosperity and industrial development. Art, science, and
literature have held their own in this wonderful march. We are
prosperous to-day beyond any other people. The masses are better
cared for, better provided for, more self-respecting, and more
independent than ever before in our history, which cannot be said of
the masses of other countries.
One of the striking differences between a revenue tariff and a
protective tariff is that the former sends the money of its people
abroad for foreign supplies and seeks out a foreign market. The latter
keeps the money at home among our own people, circulating through
the arteries of trade, and creates a market at home, which is always
the best, because the most reliable.
Surely a new era of industrial development has come to the South.
Nothing should be permitted to check or retard it. To her nature has
been most prodigal with her gifts. Her hills and valleys have been
made the storehouses of richest treasure. Coal and iron mines wait
impatiently the touch of labor and capital, and tempt both with the
promise of lavish profit.
Raw materials are found at every turn to invite the skilled artisan
to transform them into the finished product for the highest uses of
man. She possesses the fibres in rich abundance; her skilled labor
should weave the fabric.
It is said that there is nothing grown in any of the States, except
Florida, that Georgia cannot profitably produce. She has coal, iron
deposits, marble and building stone, cotton and the cereals. Nothing
but her own folly, nothing but blindness to her highest and best
interests can keep her from the front rank of the industrial States of
the Union.
Whether we discuss this question from principle, from statistics,
or experience, we must reach the same conclusion; all lead to the
same conviction.
One of the chief complaints against the protective system is its
alleged hindrance to foreign trade and a foreign market for our own
products. It is argued that if we could import raw material from other
countries free, and manufacture such raw material into products for
use, we could export them at great profit, and thus secure a standing
in the markets of the world. This theory is wholly, as I believe,
illusory. It is without substance. We have an example of free raw
material in a certain line of manufactures—that of leather for boots,
shoes, etc. In 1872 hides and skins were made free, so that our
manufacturers could import them without custom-house burdens.
They have had “free trade” in their raw material now for sixteen
years. This industry has been an exceptionally successful one, and yet
you cannot avoid being surprised when I say to you that in these
sixteen years we have been able to export but two per cent. of the
leather production of this country.
But if free raw material be necessary to secure an export trade and
the foreign markets, then I answer that our manufacturers to-day
have substantial free trade in foreign raw materials which they make
into the finished product in the United States, provided they export
it. Sections 3019, 3020, 3021, and 3022 of the United States Statutes
provide for the remission of duties on all foreign materials used in
manufacturing for the export trade. The law is positive that all
articles manufactured for export from imported materials upon
which duties have been paid, shall, when exported, be entitled to a
drawback of 90 per cent. of the duties paid on such raw materials.
Some use has been made of these laws. The remission of duties in
1884 paid upon imported material manufactured for foreign markets
amounted to $2,256,638. On some articles the drawback is equal to
the duty paid, but in no instance where articles are imported to be
manufactured here and sent abroad is the duty to exceed 10 per cent.
And yet we are gravely told by the tariff reformers that we cannot
reach foreign markets on account of the high tariff on the raw
material, when, in fact, for foreign trade foreign raw materials are
practically free. This principle was recognized as early as the
administration of George Washington, and has been enlarged and
made applicable to all imported materials, the drawbacks varying
from 60 to 100 per cent. What becomes, then, of the cry for free raw
materials in the presence of this fact? The truth is, we are not so
much concerned about the foreign market as we are about the home
market. The latter is the best, and we have not yet been able to
control it, and, until we do, that should be our chief concern. But if
any of our people are sighing for a foreign market, and value it more
highly than our own, they can import foreign raw material practically
free of duty, and after advancing it into the higher forms of
manufacture, can go out and possess the world’s markets. Taxed raw
materials do not stand in their way, and it is hypocrisy to claim
otherwise.
“The markets of the world,” in our present condition, are a snare
and a delusion. We will reach them whenever we can undersell
competing nations, and not sooner. Tariffs do not keep us out, and
free trade will not make it easier to enter them.
Upon what terms can we adopt a revenue tariff system in this
country? In one way only; by accepting European conditions, and
submitting to all the discomforts and disadvantages of our
commercial rivals. The chief obstruction in the way of a revenue
tariff are the wages paid American workingmen, and any return to
that policy involves a reduction of the cost of labor. We cannot afford
to have cheap labor in the United States. Cheap labor means cheap
men and dear money. I would rather elevate and improve the
condition of my fellow-citizens than increase the value of money and
the power of “money-bags.” This is a republic of free and equal
citizenship. The government is in the hands of the masses, and not of
the few. This is our boast, and it is a proud one. The condition of the
masses, their well-being, their intelligence, their preparation for the
civil duties which rest upon them, depend largely upon the scale of
industrial wages. It is essential, therefore, that the best possible
wages attainable shall be secured and maintained. This is vital and
fundamental. We cannot, without grave danger and serious
disturbance—we ought not under any circumstances—adopt a policy
which would scale down the wages and diminish the comforts of the
American workingmen. Their welfare and independence, their
progress and elevation are closely related to the welfare and
independence and progress of the republic. We have got no
pampered class in this country, and we want none. We want the field
kept open. No narrowing of the avenues, no lowering of our
standard. We want no barriers raised against a higher and better
civilization. The gateway of opportunity must be open to all, to the
end that they may be first who deserve to be first, whether born in
poverty or reared in luxury. We do not want the masses excluded
from competing for the first rank among their countrymen and for
the nation’s greatest honors, and we do not mean they shall be.
Free trade, or a revenue tariff, will, of necessity, shut them out. It
has no respect for labor. It holds it as the mere machinery of capital.
It would have cheap men that it might have cheap merchandise.
With all of its boasted love for the struggling millions, it is infinitely
more interested in cutting down the wages of labor than in saving
twenty-five cents on a blanket; more intent in reducing the
purchasing power of a man’s labor than the cost of his coat. Things
are not always dearest when their price is nominally the highest. The
price is not the only measure, but the wherewith to buy it is an
essential factor. Few men before me but have found in the course of
their lives more than once that that which was cheapest when
measured by mere price was the dearest when they were without
money and employment, or when their products could find no
market, and, finding it, commanded no price at all commensurate
with the labor required to produce them. Primarily, it is labor which
is interested most in this question of protection. The man with
money can seek other avenues of profit and investment, or can wait
for his dividends, but the laborer cannot wait for his dinner, and the
United States do not want citizens who make presidents, and
senates, and the house of representatives, to be in a condition of
dependence and destitution. That is not the sort of citizenship we
want.
We are different from any other nation, and it is that difference
which makes us the best. Our political system rests upon a principle
different from that of any other. It is founded upon the consent of the
people. If we had wanted it otherwise we would not have left home,
but would have remained the obedient child of an imperious parent.
We would not have turned away from the mother country. We would
have remained one of her dependencies. We would not have fought
our way through blood and sacrifice to independence. We separated
to set up for ourselves a free and independent political society, and
that policy is the best for us which best subserves the purposes of our
organization, our citizenship and civilization. It is ours to work out
our own destiny, and, in doing so, furnish an example of a free and
progressive people, whose industrial policy has made it possible to
satisfy the best and highest aspirations of men, and which closes no
field to human endeavor. We would wish for all mankind the
beneficence of our system and the opportunities which it presents.
We bid them level their condition up to ours; we will not level ours

(Download PDF) Managerial Accounting Canadian 11th Edition Garrison Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download PDF) Managerial Accounting Canadian 11th Edition Garrison Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managerial Accounting Canadian 11th

Edition Garrison Solutions Manual

Managerial Accounting Canadian 11th Edition Garrison

Managerial Accounting Canadian Canadian 10th Edition

Managerial Accounting Canadian 9th Edition Garrison

Managerial Accounting Canadian Canadian 10th Edition

Managerial Accounting 15th Edition Garrison Solutions

Managerial Accounting 16th Edition Garrison Solutions

Managerial Accounting 2nd Edition Garrison Solutions

Managerial Accounting 14th Edition Garrison Solutions

Solution to Discussion Case

Estimating percentage of completion of products requires a judgment call.

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd. 2018. All rights reserved.

6-4 In a process costing system, a Work in

6-5 The journal entry would be:

6-6 The costs that might be added to the

6-7 Under the weighted-average method,

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

2. The journal entry would be recorded as follows:

3. The “units completed and transferred to finished goods” is computed

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

10. and 11.

12. and 13.

© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

b. To record direct labour costs incurred:

c. To record applying manufacturing overhead:

d. To record transfer of unfired, molded bricks from the Molding Depart-

e. To record transfer of finished bricks from the Firing Department to the

f. To record Cost of Goods Sold:

© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

Total cost per equivalent Unit = $53.33 + $50.63 + $150.92 = $254.88

© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

Work in Process—Mixing ................................................

© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

1. Equivalent Units (EU)

* Beginning WIP 80,000 + Started 760,000 – Ending WIP 50,000 =

2. Cost per Equivalent Unit: Materials Labour Overhead

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

Equivalent Units (EU)

* Beginning WIP 25,000 + Started 25,000 – Ending WIP 5,000 = 45,000

© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

1. Equivalent Units: Materials Conversion

2. Costs per Equivalent Unit: Materials Conversion

3. Materials Conversion Total

Units completed and transferred out:

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

Total Cost Conversion

© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

1. Equivalent Units of Production

2. Cost per Equivalent Unit

Applying Costs to Units

*off $100 due to rounding

© McGraw-Hill Education, Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.

1. Equivalent Units of Production

Conversion: 55,000 units × 30% complete ..... 16,500

Equivalent units of production .......................... 430,750 411,500

*Units transferred to the next department = Units in beginning work in

2. Cost per Equivalent Unit

Cost per equivalent unit, (a) ÷ (b) ............... $1.31 $0.64*

© McGraw-Hill Education Ltd., 2018. All rights reserved.