L
LIFO (last in, first out) is 'used to price issues of goods or materials based on the cost of the most recently received
units. Cost of sales in the income statement is, therefore, valued at the cost of the most recent purchases.'
Tại sao bạn nói VAS có LIFO mà IAS không có??? Dưới đây là thông tin liên quan đến phương pháp LIFO tại IAS.
Last-In, First-Out (LIFO)
The LIFO method of inventory valuation costs the ending inventory as if the last goods purchased were the first goods used or sold. This allows the matching of current costs with current revenue and as proponents of the method argue, provides the best measure of periodic income, which is a major objective for periodic financial reporting. However, unless costs remain relatively unchanged, the LIFO method will usually distort the ending inventory balance for balance sheet purposes because inventory usually consists of costs from earlier periods. Critics of the method also point out that LIFO does not usually follow the physical flow of merchandise or materials. However, this last argument should not affect the selection of a cost flow assumption, because the matching of physical flow is not considered to be an objective of accounting for inventories.
Despite the arguable logic of using a LIFO cost flow assumption during periods of changing prices, to achieve a more meaningful measure of income, the method actually is not truly derived from a promulgated accounting principle. Rather, the basis for LIFO is found in various tax codes enacted in certain jurisdictions from time to time. Since rising general price levels have been almost the rule during the past half century, LIFO has been enacted as a form of tax relief by a number of important tax jurisdictions and was widely embraced for financial reporting purposes principally in those instances in which use for tax reporting purposes was linked to financial reporting. Other requirements of LIFO, largely dependent on local tax regulations, have included restrictions on abandoning the LIFO after first adopting it, and limitations on supplementary disclosures of income determined by alternative costing strategies. Given LIFO's genesis as an offspring of tax rules, the precise methods of applying LIFO that are permitted in different nations will vary widely; the following discussion sets forth many of the computational techniques that may validly be employed, but does not represent which, if any, may be permitted in any particular circumstance. (IAS 2 does not describe how LIFO is to be operationalized.)
The actual implementation of LIFO requires valuation of the quantity of ending inventory at prices in effect earlier. The quantity of ending inventory on hand in the year when the method is first applied is termed the base layer. This inventory is valued at actual (full absorption) cost, and unit cost is determined by dividing total cost by the quantity on hand. In subsequent periods, increases in the quantity of inventory on hand are referred to as increments, or LIFO layers. These increments are valued individually by applying one of several possible costs to the quantity of inventory representing a layer.
The actual cost of the goods most recently purchased or produced
The actual cost of the goods purchased or produced in order of acquisition
An average unit cost of all goods purchased or produced during the current year
A hybrid method that will more clearly reflect income
Thus, after using the LIFO method for five years, it is possible that an enterprise could have ending inventory consisting of the base layer and five additional layers (or increments) provided that the quantity of ending inventory increased every year.
Example of the single goods (unit) LIFO approach
Fenetre Co. is in its first year of operation and elects to use the periodic LIFO method of inventory valuation. The company sells only one product. Fenetre will apply the LIFO method using the order of current year acquisition cost. The following data are given for years 1 through 3:
Year 1
Units
Unit cost
Total cost
Purchase
200
$2.00
$400
Sale
100
--
--
Purchase
200
3.00
600
Sale
150
--
--
Year 2
Purchase
300
$3.20
$960
Sale
200
--
--
Purchase
100
3.30
330
Year 3
Purchase
100
$3.50
$350
Sale
200
--
--
Sale
100
--
--
In year 1 the following occurred:
The total goods available for sale were 400 units.
The total sales were 250 units.
Therefore, the ending inventory was 150 units.
The ending inventory is valued at the earliest current year acquisition cost of $2.00 per unit. Thus, ending inventory is valued at $300 (150 x $2.00).
Another way to look at this is to analyze both cost of goods sold and ending inventory.
Units
Unit cost
Total cost
Cost of goods sold
200
$3.00
$600
50
2.00
100
250
$700
Ending inventory
150
$2.00
$300
Note that the base-year cost is $2.00 and that the base-year level is 150 units. Therefore, if ending inventory in the subsequent period exceeds 150 units, a new layer will be created.
Year 2
Units
Unit cost
Toted cost
Cost of goods sold
100
$3.30
$330
100
3.20
320
200
$650
Ending inventory
150
$2.00
$300
200
3.20
640
350
$940
Now, if ending inventory exceeds 350 units in the next period, a new layer will be created.
Year 3
Units
Unit cost
Total cost
Cost of goods sold
100
$3.50
$350
200
3.20
640
300
$990
Ending inventory base year
150
$2.00
$300
Notice how the decrement of 200 units in year 3 eliminated the entire year 2 increment. Thus, any year 4 increase in the quantity of inventory would result in a new increment that would be valued at year 4 prices.
In situations where the ending inventory decreases from the level established at the close of the preceding year, the enterprise experiences a decrement or LIFO liquidation. Decrements will reduce or eliminate previously established LIFO layers. Once any part of a layer has been eliminated, it cannot be reinstated. For example, if in its first year after the election of LIFO an enterprise establishes a layer (increment) of ten units, in the next year inventory decreases by four units, leaving the first layer at six units, the enterprise cannot reestablish the first layer (back up to ten units) in the year that inventory next increases. Rather, it will be forced to create a new layer for the increase. The effect of LIFO liquidations in periods of rising prices is to release costs, which are significantly below the current cost being paid, into cost of goods sold from ending inventory. Thus, the resultant effect of a LIFO liquidation is to increase income, typically for both accounting and tax purposes (since most jurisdictions demand conformity between financial reporting and tax reporting). Because of this, LIFO is most commonly used by industries in which inventories are maintained or increased over time.
LIFO liquidations can take two forms, voluntary or involuntary. A voluntary liquidation exists when an enterprise decides, for one reason or another, to let inventory levels drop. Such a liquidation occurs because current prices may be too high, less inventory is needed for efficient production, or because of a transition in the product lines. Involuntary LIFO liquidations stem from reasons beyond the control of the enterprise, such as a strike, shortages, or shipping delay. Regardless of the reason, all liquidations result in a corresponding increase in income (assuming a trend of rising costs).
To compute the effect of the liquidation, the company must compute the difference between actual cost of sales and what cost of sales would have been had the inventory been reinstated. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that this hypothetical reinstatement must be computed under the company's normal pricing procedures for valuing its LIFO increments. In the example above, the effect of the year 3 LIFO liquidation would be computed as follows:
Inventory reinstatement:
200 units @ $3.50 - $3.20 = $60
Because the 200 units liquidated would have been stated at the year 3 price of $3.50 if there had been an increment, the difference between $3.50 and the actual amount charged to cost of sales for these units ($3.20) measures the effect of the liquidation.
An inordinate amount of recordkeeping is required in applying the unit LIFO method. Remember that the illustration above involved only one product. The recordkeeping burden becomes much greater as the number of products increases. For this reason, a pooling approach is generally applied to LIFO inventories.
Pooling is the process of grouping items that are naturally related and then treating this group as a single unit in determining the LIFO cost. Because the quantity of ending inventory includes many more items, decreases in one item can be made up for by increases in others, whereas under the single goods unit approach a decrease in any one item results in a liquidation of LIFO layers.
The problem in applying the pooling method emanates from the tax regulations, not the practical side of application. In applying LIFO, the tax regulations state that each type of good in the opening inventory must be compared with a similar type in the closing inventory. These items must be similar as to character, quality, and price. This qualification has generally been interpreted to mean identical. The effect of this statement is to require a separate pool for each item under the unit LIFO method. The need for a simpler, more practical approach to using the LIFO concept and allowing for a greater use of the pooling concept was met by dollar-value LIFO.
Dollar-Value LIFO
Dollar-value LIFO may be employed in those jurisdictions where it is permitted by the tax or other regulatory authorities. The dollar-value LIFO method of inventory valuation determines the cost of inventories by expressing base-year costs in terms of total dollars rather than specific prices of specific units. As discussed later, the dollar-value method also gives rise to an expanded interpretation of the use of pools. Increments and liquidations are treated the same but are reflected only in terms of a net liquidation or increment for the entire pool.
Creating pools.
Essentially three alternatives exist for determining pools under dollar-value LIFO: (1) the natural business unit, (2) multiple pools, and (3) pools for wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, and so on.
The natural business unit is defined by the existence of separate and distinct processing facilities and operations and the maintenance of separate income (loss) records. The concept of the natural business unit is generally dependent on the type of product, not the various stages of production for that project. Thus, the pool can (and will) contain raw materials, WIP, and finished goods. The three examples below, taken from treasury regulations, illustrate the application of the natural business unit concept.
Example 1
units. Cost of sales in the income statement is, therefore, valued at the cost of the most recent purchases.'
Tại sao bạn nói VAS có LIFO mà IAS không có??? Dưới đây là thông tin liên quan đến phương pháp LIFO tại IAS.
Last-In, First-Out (LIFO)
The LIFO method of inventory valuation costs the ending inventory as if the last goods purchased were the first goods used or sold. This allows the matching of current costs with current revenue and as proponents of the method argue, provides the best measure of periodic income, which is a major objective for periodic financial reporting. However, unless costs remain relatively unchanged, the LIFO method will usually distort the ending inventory balance for balance sheet purposes because inventory usually consists of costs from earlier periods. Critics of the method also point out that LIFO does not usually follow the physical flow of merchandise or materials. However, this last argument should not affect the selection of a cost flow assumption, because the matching of physical flow is not considered to be an objective of accounting for inventories.
Despite the arguable logic of using a LIFO cost flow assumption during periods of changing prices, to achieve a more meaningful measure of income, the method actually is not truly derived from a promulgated accounting principle. Rather, the basis for LIFO is found in various tax codes enacted in certain jurisdictions from time to time. Since rising general price levels have been almost the rule during the past half century, LIFO has been enacted as a form of tax relief by a number of important tax jurisdictions and was widely embraced for financial reporting purposes principally in those instances in which use for tax reporting purposes was linked to financial reporting. Other requirements of LIFO, largely dependent on local tax regulations, have included restrictions on abandoning the LIFO after first adopting it, and limitations on supplementary disclosures of income determined by alternative costing strategies. Given LIFO's genesis as an offspring of tax rules, the precise methods of applying LIFO that are permitted in different nations will vary widely; the following discussion sets forth many of the computational techniques that may validly be employed, but does not represent which, if any, may be permitted in any particular circumstance. (IAS 2 does not describe how LIFO is to be operationalized.)
The actual implementation of LIFO requires valuation of the quantity of ending inventory at prices in effect earlier. The quantity of ending inventory on hand in the year when the method is first applied is termed the base layer. This inventory is valued at actual (full absorption) cost, and unit cost is determined by dividing total cost by the quantity on hand. In subsequent periods, increases in the quantity of inventory on hand are referred to as increments, or LIFO layers. These increments are valued individually by applying one of several possible costs to the quantity of inventory representing a layer.
The actual cost of the goods most recently purchased or produced
The actual cost of the goods purchased or produced in order of acquisition
An average unit cost of all goods purchased or produced during the current year
A hybrid method that will more clearly reflect income
Thus, after using the LIFO method for five years, it is possible that an enterprise could have ending inventory consisting of the base layer and five additional layers (or increments) provided that the quantity of ending inventory increased every year.
Example of the single goods (unit) LIFO approach
Fenetre Co. is in its first year of operation and elects to use the periodic LIFO method of inventory valuation. The company sells only one product. Fenetre will apply the LIFO method using the order of current year acquisition cost. The following data are given for years 1 through 3:
Year 1
Units
Unit cost
Total cost
Purchase
200
$2.00
$400
Sale
100
--
--
Purchase
200
3.00
600
Sale
150
--
--
Year 2
Purchase
300
$3.20
$960
Sale
200
--
--
Purchase
100
3.30
330
Year 3
Purchase
100
$3.50
$350
Sale
200
--
--
Sale
100
--
--
In year 1 the following occurred:
The total goods available for sale were 400 units.
The total sales were 250 units.
Therefore, the ending inventory was 150 units.
The ending inventory is valued at the earliest current year acquisition cost of $2.00 per unit. Thus, ending inventory is valued at $300 (150 x $2.00).
Another way to look at this is to analyze both cost of goods sold and ending inventory.
Units
Unit cost
Total cost
Cost of goods sold
200
$3.00
$600
50
2.00
100
250
$700
Ending inventory
150
$2.00
$300
Note that the base-year cost is $2.00 and that the base-year level is 150 units. Therefore, if ending inventory in the subsequent period exceeds 150 units, a new layer will be created.
Year 2
Units
Unit cost
Toted cost
Cost of goods sold
100
$3.30
$330
100
3.20
320
200
$650
Ending inventory
150
$2.00
$300
200
3.20
640
350
$940
Now, if ending inventory exceeds 350 units in the next period, a new layer will be created.
Year 3
Units
Unit cost
Total cost
Cost of goods sold
100
$3.50
$350
200
3.20
640
300
$990
Ending inventory base year
150
$2.00
$300
Notice how the decrement of 200 units in year 3 eliminated the entire year 2 increment. Thus, any year 4 increase in the quantity of inventory would result in a new increment that would be valued at year 4 prices.
In situations where the ending inventory decreases from the level established at the close of the preceding year, the enterprise experiences a decrement or LIFO liquidation. Decrements will reduce or eliminate previously established LIFO layers. Once any part of a layer has been eliminated, it cannot be reinstated. For example, if in its first year after the election of LIFO an enterprise establishes a layer (increment) of ten units, in the next year inventory decreases by four units, leaving the first layer at six units, the enterprise cannot reestablish the first layer (back up to ten units) in the year that inventory next increases. Rather, it will be forced to create a new layer for the increase. The effect of LIFO liquidations in periods of rising prices is to release costs, which are significantly below the current cost being paid, into cost of goods sold from ending inventory. Thus, the resultant effect of a LIFO liquidation is to increase income, typically for both accounting and tax purposes (since most jurisdictions demand conformity between financial reporting and tax reporting). Because of this, LIFO is most commonly used by industries in which inventories are maintained or increased over time.
LIFO liquidations can take two forms, voluntary or involuntary. A voluntary liquidation exists when an enterprise decides, for one reason or another, to let inventory levels drop. Such a liquidation occurs because current prices may be too high, less inventory is needed for efficient production, or because of a transition in the product lines. Involuntary LIFO liquidations stem from reasons beyond the control of the enterprise, such as a strike, shortages, or shipping delay. Regardless of the reason, all liquidations result in a corresponding increase in income (assuming a trend of rising costs).
To compute the effect of the liquidation, the company must compute the difference between actual cost of sales and what cost of sales would have been had the inventory been reinstated. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that this hypothetical reinstatement must be computed under the company's normal pricing procedures for valuing its LIFO increments. In the example above, the effect of the year 3 LIFO liquidation would be computed as follows:
Inventory reinstatement:
200 units @ $3.50 - $3.20 = $60
Because the 200 units liquidated would have been stated at the year 3 price of $3.50 if there had been an increment, the difference between $3.50 and the actual amount charged to cost of sales for these units ($3.20) measures the effect of the liquidation.
An inordinate amount of recordkeeping is required in applying the unit LIFO method. Remember that the illustration above involved only one product. The recordkeeping burden becomes much greater as the number of products increases. For this reason, a pooling approach is generally applied to LIFO inventories.
Pooling is the process of grouping items that are naturally related and then treating this group as a single unit in determining the LIFO cost. Because the quantity of ending inventory includes many more items, decreases in one item can be made up for by increases in others, whereas under the single goods unit approach a decrease in any one item results in a liquidation of LIFO layers.
The problem in applying the pooling method emanates from the tax regulations, not the practical side of application. In applying LIFO, the tax regulations state that each type of good in the opening inventory must be compared with a similar type in the closing inventory. These items must be similar as to character, quality, and price. This qualification has generally been interpreted to mean identical. The effect of this statement is to require a separate pool for each item under the unit LIFO method. The need for a simpler, more practical approach to using the LIFO concept and allowing for a greater use of the pooling concept was met by dollar-value LIFO.
Dollar-Value LIFO
Dollar-value LIFO may be employed in those jurisdictions where it is permitted by the tax or other regulatory authorities. The dollar-value LIFO method of inventory valuation determines the cost of inventories by expressing base-year costs in terms of total dollars rather than specific prices of specific units. As discussed later, the dollar-value method also gives rise to an expanded interpretation of the use of pools. Increments and liquidations are treated the same but are reflected only in terms of a net liquidation or increment for the entire pool.
Creating pools.
Essentially three alternatives exist for determining pools under dollar-value LIFO: (1) the natural business unit, (2) multiple pools, and (3) pools for wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, and so on.
The natural business unit is defined by the existence of separate and distinct processing facilities and operations and the maintenance of separate income (loss) records. The concept of the natural business unit is generally dependent on the type of product, not the various stages of production for that project. Thus, the pool can (and will) contain raw materials, WIP, and finished goods. The three examples below, taken from treasury regulations, illustrate the application of the natural business unit concept.
Example 1
Sửa lần cuối:
Mỗi phương pháp đếu có ưu, nhược điểm khác nhau. Tùy vào thực tế từng đơn vị mà chọ phương pháp phù hợp & hiệu quả nhất . VD: cty bạn kinh doanh hàng thực phẩm mà dùng LIFO thì có mà chết dỡ.
good luck
L
dạ em cám ơn ạh. nhưng cho em hỏi là tại sao IAS đã loại bỏ LIFO ra khỏi nhưng trong khi VAS vẫn chấp nhận nó, em ngĩ một phần là do nền kinh tế ở Việt Nam lạm phát giá tăng dẫn đến dùng LIFO làm giảm khoản thuế phải nộp ngân sách. em ko biết có còn lý do nào khác ko ạh.mong anh chị giải thích giúp em vs, em chân thành cám ơn ạh 
L
Do không tìm thấy đường up tài liệu lên cho em đọc tham khảo. Em chịu khó tìm trên mạng đều có hết các tài liệu tham khảo.
An Analysis of LIFO inventory valuation
Joseph L. Romeo
Honors Accounting Thesis
December 5, 2008
2
Table of Contents
I. Introduction…………………………………………….3
II. The History of Inventory Accounting…………………4
III. A Closer Look at Inventory Valuation Methods……..7
IV. The LIFO Debate-Proponents………………………....9
V. The LIFO Debate-Opponents………………………….10
VI. LIFO and the Effect on Financial Ratios……………..16
VII. LIFO Usage over the Past 10 Years…………………...18
VIII. Future of LIFO………………………………………....23
IX. Effects of Repeal………………………………………..24
X. Conclusion……………………………………………....26
3
An Analysis of LIFO inventory valuation
Introduction
Inventory accounting is one of the topics to be discussed as the U.S. contemplates
adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The U.S. operates in a global
economy; a main goal of IFRS is to enhance investor comparability of firms by adopting one set
of accounting standards. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently released a
statement justifying the adoption of IFRS and provided a timetable for this action. According to
the news release, large, multinational institutions are allowed to switch to IFRS as early as
December 2009; however, the SEC would not make an official ruling on the mandatory adoption
of IFRS until 2011. The adoption of IFRS will dependent on certain factors, or “milestones.” In
other words, the SEC will not implement a mandatory adoption of LIFO unless it is in the best
interest of the public and investors. These milestones include: “improvements in accounting
standards, the accountability of funding of the International Accounting Standards Committee
(IASC), the improvement in the ability to use interactive data for IFRS reporting, education and
training related to IFRS, limited early use of IFRS where this would enhance comparability for
U.S. investors, the anticipated timing of future rulemaking for the Commission, and the
implementation of the mandatory use of IFRS by U.S. issuers.”1 If adopted, IFRS rules would be
implemented in 2014.
The Last in, First out (LIFO) inventory accounting method has received scrutiny over the
years because the method allows firms to understate their net income, and thus pay less in tax.
Under IFRS, LIFO would be banned and firms would be required to use either the FIFO or the
weighted average inventory method. The goal of this report is to provide an analysis of the LIFO
inventory valuation method, which has had significant effects on firms over the years, and
evaluate the decision to eliminate LIFO from U.S. financial reporting.
1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
FR Parts 210, 229, 230, 240, 244 and 249
[RELEASE NOS. 33-8982; 34-58960; File No. S7-27-08]
RIN 3235-AJ93
4
Currently, the majority of firms value their inventory using one of two methods, the LIFO
method or the First in, First out valuation method (FIFO). The use of LIFO instead of FIFO will
have an impact on a firm’s net income, total assets, and noncurrent liabilities. An analysis
comparing firms’ (with LIFO reserves) earnings under LIFO and FIFO for the previous 10 years
will show the magnitude of the effect of using LIFO instead of FIFO and the discrepancies in
income and inventories that arise from using the different methods. The analysis will also reveal
the inconsistencies between the intended goals of the LIFO in inventory accounting method and
how it is actually used. Moreover, the LIFO inventory valuation method will be shown as a tool
for companies to inflate or deflate key financial ratios and look more favorable to shareholders
and investors.
In the next section, I provide a history of inventory accounting, followed by a description
of each inventory accounting method. After, I will discuss the debate amongst proponents and
opponents of LIFO, explore the usage of LIFO over the past 10 years, and discuss the future of
LIFO. To conclude, I will analyze the effects of the LIFO repeal on the U.S. business
environment.
The History of Inventory Accounting
LIFO was not always an acceptable inventory valuation method under Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The implementation of LIFO took years and
tremendous efforts from big business and accountants. LIFO became popularized during the
New Deal when the Roosevelt administration passed unfavorable government policies, such as
the undistributed profits tax, that sought to tax the undistributed profits of corporations in order
to bolster the economy.
In 1918, Congress decided to approve the use of inventory accounting to reflect income.
The only methods approved were the FIFO method and the weighted average method. LIFO had
not come into existence yet; however, the base-stock method became popular at the time and
would become LIFO’s predecessor. The base-stock method accounted for the portion of the
taxpayer’s inventory that was considered necessary to the ongoing business of the concern like it
was a fixed asset and valued it at its original cost basis. When this asset was depleted, new
5
inventory was written down to the original cost basis to replenish the reserve. When the firm
bought new inventory, this was valued at lower of cost or market and sold as such by the firm. In
this way, when items were removed from inventory, they were removed from items most
recently added to total inventory, not the base-stock. As a result, the cost of the reserve would
remain at the original price and not fluctuate as prices rose and fell during the years. 2
Firms argued that the base-stock method of valuation was effective and accurately valued
inventory, especially in the wake of the Great Depression when inventory levels dropped to
extreme lows and then rebounded to higher levels. However, others felt that this inventory
method should only be used by firms who would be significantly affected by changes in
inventory prices. The Internal Revenue Bureau was one major opponent of the use of the basestock
method. The tax rules of inventory accounting were based on the FIFO method. For
example, under this method, inventory had to be valued at “cost, or lower of cost or market, and
applied consistently to the entire inventory.” Also, the “the goods in inventory were deemed to
be the goods most recently purchased.” The base-stock method was not consistent with these
principles and left firms who wanted to use this method with two choices, they could keep two
sets of books, one for stockholders, and one for tax authorities, or they could take their case to
court, which is what several firms chose, including Kansas City Structural Steel. 3
Kansas City Structural Steel was the first company to actively lobby for the
implementation of the base-stock method. However, they faced much the same criticism heard
today with regards to the LIFO method. In their decision against the company, the U.S. Supreme
Court stated that the base-stock method was inconsistent with accounting established by
Congress (Kansas Structural Steel Company v. Lucas). The failure of the base-stock method in
the Supreme Court did not deter proponents from continuing to fight for their cause. The basestock
method began to increase in popularity due to economic conditions, the changing role of
the accounting profession, and the increasing role of big business and their discontent with the
New Deal policies.
2 The ideas in this paragraph are from Lessard at p. 2
3 Lessard at p. 3
6
During the Great Depression, firms preferred the FIFO method because under this
method, in periods of declining prices, net income is reduced and thus, taxable income is also
reduced. However, when the economy began to pick up, many members of business community
were looking for a new valuation method that would keep net income low in periods of inflation
and thus reduce their taxable income. Proponents of this method argued that the base-stock
method was the best method because it properly matched costs with revenues. For example, the
inventory that was sold was matched against the market cost of that inventory. In addition,
instead of constantly reporting new values for inventory, the base-stock method would hold the
inventory at a constant value and reduce volatility, thus more accurately reflecting the price of
inventory over the long run. Firms with large inventories began to favor this method because of
the potential tax advantages; however, they would not gain Congress’ support alone. In order for
this method to become an acceptable part of U.S. reporting, large firms needed the support of big
business and accountants. Fortunately, the undistributed profits tax rallied big business behind
LIFO.
The undistributed tax profit initiated by the Roosevelt Administration and the push for
the LIFO valuation method complemented each other during 1936. The tax was implemented in
order to make up for a shortfall in the budget. “The Treasury Department recommended
eliminating the existing corporate income tax, replacing it with a tax on undistributed profits, and
repealing the income tax’s dividend exemption.”4 The large corporations who opposed the
undistributed profits tax pushed for the adoption of the LIFO method because it would increase
cost of goods sold, lower net income, and reduce required distributions to stockholders. “For
advocates of LIFO, the undistributed profits tax provided additional justification for adoption of
an inventory accounting method that more accurately reflected income and profits.”5 In other
words, if the government was going to tax undistributed profits, an accurate assessment of profits
would be necessary. Despite the success of the LIFO campaign, many of the same arguments
that had plagued the base stock method still remained. For example, opponents were concerned
that if both LIFO and FIFO were acceptable accounting methods, companies would just switch
4 Lessard at p. 7
5 Lessard at p. 7
7
between LIFO and FIFO to reduce taxes. In addition, they were concerned that the use of LIFO
would increase managerial manipulation of earnings. Furthermore, they speculated that the
earnings fluctuations of the oil companies were merely due to change in prices and not to
changes in inventory valuations, as proponents of LIFO argued. 6Despite opposition to LIFO, the
pressures from big business and the accountants’ support of the method were too great. The
Revenue Act of 1939 authorized the use of LIFO for every taxpayer and discarded the
undistributed profits tax. 7
A Closer Look at Inventory Valuation Methods
The goal of GAAP is to create rules in which the inventory sold is matched against the
expense incurred to acquire that inventory. However, as illustrated above, there are differing
views on which costs to associate with inventory. There are three inventory accounting methods
that are used by companies today. The FIFO method matches revenues against the initial cost of
inventory, the LIFO method matches revenues against current cost of inventories, and the
weighted average method matches revenues against the average cost of inventory (the average of
historical and market costs). The majority of companies use the FIFO inventory valuation
method, while some opt to use the LIFO inventory valuation or the weighted average valuation
method. There is no “correct” method; however, the majority of LIFO users are those who report
inventories.
In order to gain a better understanding of the importance of LIFO and FIFO, we must
consider the importance of LIFO to a firm with inventory and a firm without inventory. A key
aspect of LIFO is that it is fundamentally inconsistent with tax principles because it discriminates
between firms with inventories and those without inventories For example, while LIFO is
available to any firm, only firms with inventories can use it. No financial institution has
inventory, and thus does not have the option to benefit from the tax break that LIFO creates.8 As
a result, rules have been put in place to discourage companies from using the LIFO method. For
6 Lessard at p. 8
7 Lessard at p. 11
8 Klienbard, et al. at p. 238
8
example, the book-tax conformity rule states that if a company is using LIFO for tax purposes; it
must use LIFO for all of its financial reporting. The book tax conformity rule attempts to tell
firms that “the cost of realizing that (tax savings) is reporting an inferior balance sheet that
understates the inventory’s cost, and an inferior income statement that fails to report realized
holding gains on sold inventory items.”9 The book-tax conformity rule had to be implemented
because Congress would have been criticized for allowing the sole use of one method over the
other. For example, if Congress had forced firms to use FIFO, “they would have prevented
managers from harvesting the tax benefit, and if they required LIFO, they would have forced
managers to publish inferior” balance sheets and income statements.10 The book tax conformity
rules discourage LIFO without directly stating it cannot be used. However, there are no true
disadvantages for firms because they can elect to disclose LIFO Reserves in the footnotes to the
financial statements. If firms with inventory can use LIFO and report lower net income and thus
lower taxes, and still report financial statements that will not mislead investors, there is no reason
to abandon LIFO. Therefore, LIFO is only used in practice to take advantage of a tax benefit and
has no place in financial accounting.
The LIFO Reserve provides firms with a measure of the benefit from both tax advantages
of LIFO and reporting advantages of FIFO. The LIFO Reserve is calculated by subtracting the
inventory valued under LIFO from the inventory valued under FIFO. The LIFO Reserve is a
critical piece of any LIFO firm’s financial statements because it can be used to calculate the
value of inventory under FIFO and subsequently the net income, liabilities, and key financial
ratios under FIFO. Firms using LIFO disclose a LIFO reserve and any financial statement
calculations under FIFO.
Each inventory method can benefit a company in different ways depending on the
economy. In periods of rising prices, firms that want to receive a tax benefit and are willing to
report a lower net income will opt to use LIFO. In periods of declining prices, firms will benefit
9 Miller, et al. at p. 2
10 Ibid. 9
9
by using the FIFO inventory accounting method. However, it is important to note that firms
cannot switch between the two methods depending on the rise and fall of prices. In order to
switch between methods, a firm needs IRS approval and there are costs associated with this
change that firms would have to constantly undergo even if they were permitted to keep
switching.11 Therefore, a major component in selecting an inventory valuation system is its
implications for taxable income. The LIFO accounting method does not provide any benefit to
the company on its balance sheet (it creates an understatement of inventory); the company only
benefits from a reduction in taxable income, which is just one of many arguments for the
abolishment of LIFO that will be discussed further.
The LIFO Debate-Proponents
Before evaluating the arguments for and against the use of LIFO, it is important to realize
the subjective nature of inventory valuation. Firms can chose different methods to value
inventory and therefore record different prices for inventory and, consequently, cost of goods
sold. For example, proponents of LIFO often have differing views about the nature of the tax
breaks and often emphasize the importance of income statement, whereas opponents will
emphasize the importance of the balance sheet in discussing the use of LIFO.
The result of the use of LIFO generally results in reporting lower net income. The effect
of reporting a lower net income is paying less in taxes; however, proponents of LIFO claim that
these benefits are justified and do not constitute a tax deferral because firms are continuing to
reinvest the money back into the business and there has been “no genuine economic realization
event.”12 In addition, proponents of LIFO classify the method as a temporary difference created
by tax laws, similar to that of the accelerated depreciation methods. In the next sections, I will
explore why these claims are invalid.
Moreover, proponents of LIFO suggest that “LIFO produces more accurate income
statements.”13 The argument is that the LIFO method more accurately matches costs to revenues
11 Dennis-Escoffier at p. 105
12 Klienbard et al at p. 241
13 Katz at p. 1
10
because the cost of goods sold reflects the current prices of the goods in the market. In theory,
this idea seems justified; however, the specific literature of FAS 157 disproves this assessment of
LIFO.
FAS 157 requires firms to value all items in the financial statements-inventory, liabilities,
pension plans, etc. - at fair value. In a business environment where all items are to be recorded at
what they would sell for in the market, recording cost of goods sold at market value would seem
like the correct practice. Under this assumption, firms would have every reason to use LIFO
because not only would this inventory method reduce the amount of taxes payable, but it would
mean that LIFO inventory valuation is consistent with GAAP, more so than firms using FIFO.
However, reporting cost of goods sold at fair value is not consistent with the “fair value”
discussed in FAS 157 because if firms record cost of goods sold at current market prices, the
inventory would have to be marked at historical costs (and therefore undervalued), which is
inconsistent with the policies of FAS 157. LIFO remains an inferior inventory valuation method,
one that is inconsistent with the tax and financial accounting principles. In the preceding section,
we will explore other problems with the LIFO inventory valuation method.
The LIFO Debate- Opponents
The birth of LIFO in the early 20th century as an acceptable valuation method was
supported by accountants and big business and strongly opposed by the Treasury Department.
The LIFO valuation method was created as a valuation method that would assist manufacturing
firms in reporting accurate financial statements. However, there has been speculation that the
reason firms use LIFO is to benefit from a “tax holiday” that results from the use of the method.
The term “tax holiday” is appropriate because under LIFO, firms can report lower net income,
and thus pay less tax. The amount of tax that firms avoid can be calculated by multiplying the
LIFO Reserve by the applicable tax rate. The data collected from Compustat (see below) will
reveal that from 2006-2007, the amount of the LIFO reserve increased from $74 billion to $92
billion (it is important to note the $92 billion LIFO Reserve was aggregated from companies
representing only approximately 4% of all publicly traded companies in 2007). As a result,
uncollected taxes increased from approximately $26 billion to $32 billion (assuming a 35% tax
11
rate). It is important to note that these figures will understate the aggregate LIFO Reserve as
they do not include non-public firms.14 In either circumstance, the financial impact of LIFO on
firms and the economy is substantial.
The LIFO Reserve (in millions)
Year
LIFO
Reserve
% Change in
LIFO
Reserve
Change in
LIFO
Reserve
Net
Income(LIFO)
Net Income
(FIFO) Companies
1996 29,860.43
1997 29,353.51 -2% (506.92) 87,392.11 86,885.19 281
1998 25,230.29 -14% (4,123.22) 95,173.50 91,050.27 285
1999 30,507.47 21% 5,277.18 103,375.20 108,652.38 292
2000 33,971.21 11% 3,463.74 111,321.75 114,785.48 294
2001 27,841.81 -18% (6,129.40) 76,827.27 70,697.87 318
2002 33,137.70 19% 5,295.89 60,475.53 65,771.41 299
2003 34,476.44 4% 1,338.73 107,233.84 108,572.58 305
2004 45,245.73 31% 10,769.29 159,894.39 170,663.68 313
2005 63,388.44 40% 18,142.71 191,805.47 209,948.18 324
2006 66,390.74 5% 3,002.30 225,647.41 228,649.71 329
2007 91,310.44 38% 24,919.71 208,446.19 233,365.89 336
The data was derived using Compustat database for fiscal years 1996-2007. The companies represented include
those reporting a positive LIFO Reserve for each fiscal year.
The ability of a firm to deliberately avoid a tax obligation is inconsistent with tax
principles because it may create a permanent “tax holiday” for these firms (i.e. the gains in
wealth from gains in inventory are never taxed) and only the firms who select this method can
benefit. Some firms have been using LIFO for years. It is no surprise that these firms are the
14 Plesko, George. Committee on Finance, United States Senate. 13 June 2006. 21 Nov. 2008
<www.nam.org/~/media/Files/s_nam/docs/237100/237063.pdf.ashx>.
12
same firms who have been avoiding substantial taxes for years and the same firms who report
unusually high LIFO reserves. These firms have been benefiting from what is known as the
“value creep” effect. The “value creep” effect can be best illustrated by example. Recently, oil
prices skyrocketed. The price per barrel is significantly more than it was a decade ago. However,
firms that are continuing to value their inventory using LIFO are benefiting by not recognizing
this gain. As the price per barrel rises and oil companies match their revenues against current oil
prices, they still have inventory that is valued at historic prices, prices that could be
representative of barrels of oil costing significantly lower than their price today. Therefore, oil
companies are reporting far less net income then they would without LIFO and therefore paying
less in tax.15
As shown in the graph, inventories under LIFO for all companies reporting a LIFO
reserve are significantly understated. I have collected total inventory data from the same firms
analyzed in the preceding table. Below, I provide a comparison of company’s total inventory
under the LIFO and the FIFO methods.
15 Klienbard et al. at p. 243
13
Aggregate Inventory Under LIFO & FIFO (in millions of dollars)
The inventories are much higher for firms using FIFO than those reporting LIFO reserves.
This difference is due to the undervaluaing of inventories that results from the use of LIFO
(Compustat).
The data presented above shows the amount of inventory reported by all companies under
LIFO and FIFO for the years 1997-2007. The inventory under LIFO is undervalued, thus
creating discrepencies in total assets, which can have an effect on key financial ratios and
evaluation of firm performance (described below). The opponents of LIFO often look to the
balance sheet as a key indicator of a firms profitability. However, with the adoption and
widespread use of the LIFO method, investors are more inclined to look at the income statement
as a key performance measure. Katz suggests that “ the International Accounting Standards
Board has pushed companies to move ‘from an income statement view’…noting that a balance
sheet could reflect the cost of goods sold from ’50 years ago’.”16 In other words, the International
Accounting Standards Board recognizes the understatement of inventories on a firm’s balance
sheet as a result of the use of LIFO and is urging others to realize this as well. This
understatement is most pronounced industries with large recent increases in inventory.
16 Katz at p. 1
14
The companies with the largest LIFO reserves are those from the oil and petroleum
sectors. For example, looking at a graph comparing Exxon Mobil’s total inventory under LIFO
and FIFO, we can see that inventory has been significantly understated for years.
Exxon Mobil (in millions of units)
As oil prices keep rising, the LIFO reserve and the gap between LIFO inventory and FIFO
inventory will continue to increase (Compustat).
The proponents of LIFO suggested two arguments to justify the use of LIFO. The first
idea supports the tax deferral on the basis that there would be “no genuine economic realization
event.” However, this claim is contradictory because they are saying that is acceptable for the
firms using LIFO to benefit from a tax-free transfer of money and wealth. In other words
proponents claim that it is acceptable if a firm reports a lower net income, and subsequently uses
the tax benefit to invest in the business. However, this same firm could generate a similar amount
of capital by borrowing from a bank. If they borrowed, they would have to pay interest.
Therefore, a tax benefit (the uncollected tax) is a tax-free transfer of money. Moreover, in
response to the claim that a tax deferral is a result of a temporary tax difference, similar to
accumulated depreciation, opponents state the tax that these firms defer due to accelerated
15
depreciation is paid at a later time; the only way to ever receive tax on inventory monies is to ban
LIFO and collect the tax on the amount of the LIFO Reserve.17
Tax avoidance is a direct result of the LIFO method; however, the method also has the
potential to influence managers to manipulate earnings. For example, in periods of rising prices,
cost of goods sold increase and inventories remain at low levels. Towards the end of a fiscal
year, managers can purchase more inventories “and match these goods against revenues to avoid
charging the old costs to expense.”18 According to Congressman Charles Rangel, the key to
getting back revenue lost is to reduce loopholes such as this one that exist in the system.19
Although acts such as the one described above may be perfectly legal, they are not consistent
with goals of accounting standards. It may not be in the best interest of the firm to have excess
inventory on hand. Therefore, the firm engages in practices that may not increase the value of the
firm just so the firm can take advantage of tax breaks. In addition, firms can use the liquidation
of LIFO layers to “reduce inventories and thereby release earnings.”20 The ability to manipulate
earnings is unique to the LIFO accounting method and is inconsistent with tax principles.
Perhaps the strongest opposition of the LIFO method comes from the evidence that the
absence of taxes, there is little evidence that any taxpayer would use LIFO accounting to fairly
present its financial statements. For example, many companies base their pricing decisions on a
FIFO average. In other words, when firms create a product and need to decide on a fair market
price, they need to take into account the price it costs to make. They cannot choose a value at
which they think will be the market price at time of sale. Also, profit sharing and other bonus
arrangements are not based on LIFO (rewards are based on profits created from matching
revenues achieved to the actual cost of producing the inventory), and the use of a pure LIFO
17 Klienbard et al at p. 241
18 Klienbard at al. at p. 247
19 McIntyre, Bob. "Congressman Rangel’s Tax Bill Would Make the Tax Code Simpler & Fairer — and the
Changes Are All Paid For." Citizens for Tax Justice 2 Nov. 2007. 21 Nov. 2008 <CTJ - Citizens For Tax Justice pdf/rangelbill.pdf>.
20 Klienbard at al. at p. 247
16
system is troublesome for interim periods because estimates must be made for year-end
quantities and prices. Once again, accurately estimating future sales is made easier with FIFO
because firms can easily predict the physical flow of the goods. In addition, if LIFO is used, it is
troublesome to estimate market prices for months ahead of time. It is much easier to create
forward looking statements using the product cost as the cost of goods sold.21
LIFO and the Effect on Financial Ratios
Other arguments for the repeal of LIFO focus on its impact on financial ratios. LIFO has
a significant effect on profitability ratios, activity ratios, and solvency ratios. For example, a
study conducted by Ayres, et al. reveals that for companies reporting a LIFO reserve in 2006,
once converted to FIFO, the profitability ratio went up 325%, the activity and solvency ratios
went down 11.8 % and 10.3% respectively, and the return on common equity, days to sell
inventory, and the current ratio, went up 287%, 48.4%, and 25% respectively.22 As stated earlier,
the majority of the LIFO reserves are concentrated in a relatively few number of companies
within the petroleum and natural gas and steel works industries. The impact of LIFO on financial
ratios in these concentrated firms is significant and misleading to investors and shareholders
alike.
According to Ayres, et al., the LIFO reserve has a significant impact on total assets and
net income for the petroleum and natural gas and steel industries. To verify this claim, data has
been collected from 1975- 2005 reflecting the LIFO Reserve as a percent of reported inventory.
According to research conducted by Ayres, et al., in 2005, the LIFO Reserve accounted for
approximately 27% of the reported inventory. Therefore, if FIFO were used, the inventory would
rise approximately 27%. The impact on such an increase would significantly affect key ratios.
Perhaps the most significant ratio analysts look at is the Return on Equity, which is the return on
assets multiplied by the financial leverage ratio. Firms using LIFO report a higher net income
and a higher inventory; therefore, firms who have opted to use LIFO instead of FIFO are
21 The ideas in this paragraph are from Klienbard et al. at p. 243
22 Ayres et al. at p. 12
17
significantly understating their net income, total assets, and thus their return on equity.23 The
understatement of such a financial ratio will make it easy for the firm to constantly beat earnings
and meet customer expectations. For example, a company using LIFO can liquidate its LIFO
layers in a difficult time and thus meet or beat earnings expectations that are already understated
because of the use of LIFO. Analysts make predictions on firm earnings quarter after quarter, but
these predictions are an understatement of the firm’s potential. The use of FIFO will reveal that
the firm is actually more profitable then it appears. Therefore, in addition to benefiting by paying
less tax, managers who opt to use LIFO can alter the perceptions of their company and create a
different view of the firm in the market.
While investors will be concerned with the ROE, they should also pay some attention to
the financial impact LIFO has on the Days in Inventory Ratio and the Current Ratio. The Days in
Inventory ratio measures how long a company’s assets are in inventory and it is calculated by
dividing 365 by the inventory turnover ratio. The inventory turnover ratio is calculated by
dividing the cost of goods sold by the average inventory. Under LIFO, the cost of goods sold is
overstated, thus yielding a relatively higher inventory turnover which equates to a lower days in
inventory. However, if FIFO was used, cost of goods sold would appropriately consist of lower
priced, older inventory and the inventory turnover would be lower. Subsequently, the days in
inventory ratio would be higher. Therefore, firms would not be turning over inventory as fast as
they appear to. The current ratio measures a firm’s current assets minus a firm’s current
liabilities-it is a solvency ratio. When LIFO inventory valuation is used, taxes are avoided, thus
there is an understatement of long-term debt. If LIFO is repealed, companies would have to
restate their inventories to higher, market price levels. As a result, firms would be forced to pay a
significant amount of taxes on their LIFO reserve. The current ratio would rise because there
would be a gain in current assets (inventory) and the current liabilities would remain the same
because the tax liability would be included in long-term debt.24
23 Ayres et al. at p. 14
24 Ayres et al. at 18-19
18
LIFO Usage over the Past 10 Years
I have collected data from 10K reports using the Compustat Database for companies
reporting a LIFO reserve over the past 10 years (1997-2007). The trend over the past 10 years
has been for more companies to adopt FIFO; however, between the years 1997 and 2007, the
amount of LIFO users appears to be increasing. This occurs because I first collected the net
income and total inventory for companies reporting a LIFO reserve in 2007. Next, I collected the
same data for these companies dating back to 1997. Therefore, some of these companies may not
have used LIFO in the previous years and just recently began to use it. In my calculations, I have
aggregated the LIFO Reserve of all the firms for each year, derived the change in the LIFO
Reserve from the prior year, and added that change to the firms’ aggregate net income in order to
derive the aggregate net income that would have been reported under FIFO. The following
formula illustrates the procedure:
Income under LIFO + LIFO Reserve = Income under FIFO
The aggregate amount of net income for all companies under LIFO and FIFO valuation
methods are summarized in the table located in the previous section and in the graph below. As
discussed earlier, over the past 10 years, firms reporting a LIFO Reserve have been consistently
reporting lower net income in the years in which the LIFO Reserve has increased (the LIFO
Reserve has increased in most of the last 10 years and has increased substantially in 2004, 2005,
and 2007). As a result, taxable income has been lower and the amount of uncollected tax over the
past 10 years is approximately $32 billion for all firms (assuming a 35% average tax rate).
Furthermore, the amount of firms reporting a LIFO reserve for 2007 is approximately
4%; therefore, a significant portion of the LIFO Reserve is aggregated in a relatively small
number of companies. For example, according to research done by Plesko (2008), in 2007, 356
companies reported a LIFO Reserve; 5 companies accounted for 50%, 19 companies accounted
for 75%, and 68 companies accounted for 90% of the reserve.25 In addition, I have conducted
25 Plesko, George, “Does LIFO have a future?” Presentation at the University of Illinois Tax Symposium, October
2008.
19
research pooling data from 2002-2007; the data reveals the percentage of firms using LIFO from
2002-2007 and the aggregate LIFO Reserve for that year. In my findings (summarized below),
the amount of firms using LIFO are decreasing over the years; however, the amount of the LIFO
Reserve is steadily increasing (with the exception of 2002-2003). As prices continue to rise;
firms in certain industries (steel and oil and petroleum) continue to benefit from not recognizing
the gains in their inventories and from matching current revenues with current prices in the
marketplace.
Earnings of Firms Reporting a LIFO Reserve 1997-2007 (in millions)
Firms reporting a LIFO reserve report lower net income then those who use FIFO; lower reported net income
results in uncollected taxes (Compustat).
20
Percent Decrease in Firms using a LIFO Reserve
Year Aggregate LIFO Reserve Firms Reporting a LIFO Reserve
2002 42,419.09 513.00
2003 41,124.76 480.00
2004 54,632.94 454.00
2005 71,515.08 424.00
2006 73,977.01 399.00
2007 91,669.42 344.00
Typically, there has been a trend to move away from the LIFO inventory valuation method, as indicated above.
(Compustat).
According to Ayres, the steel and oil and petroleum industries benefit the most from
LIFO.26 The graph below reveals the LIFO effect on earnings for AK Steel Holding Corporation
and Exxon Mobil. The income for each is significantly higher under the FIFO method in recent
years due the recent increases in prices and therefore, these firms have been consistently paying
less tax. It has been suggested that these companies are holding inventory on their books at
prices from decades ago. By matching current costs with current revenues, these firms can avoid
the vast increases in income that should be reflective of the rise in oil and steel prices.27
26 Ayres et al. at p. 5
27 Klienbard et al. at p. 243
21
Exxon Mobil (in millions)
With the recent increases in oil prices, firms such as Exxon Mobil are benefiting from
the LIFO method. They match current revenues against current costs, and record barrels of
oil at historic prices on their balance sheet (Compustat).
AK Steel (in millions)
AK Steel benefits from increases in steel prices; net income has been generally understated for the past 10 years
(Compustat).
22
As stated previously, proponents of LIFO focus on the income statement as the
predominate indicator of a firm’s profitability and contest that the LIFO method appropriately
matches costs to revenues and thus provides a more accurate income statement than the FIFO
method. Thus far, I have analyzed the effect LIFO has on net income, and the amount of
uncollected tax in addition to the effect LIFO has on inventories. LIFO users often take a
“income statement approach,” meaning they find the accuracy of the income statement to be the
most important financial indicator of a firm’s success. As a result, some suggest that LIFO is a
more conservative approach because of this understatement of net income; however, the reality is
that it is not conservative because it creates a tax breaks for certain firms. If firms were paying
taxes on the correct amount of income over the years, there income statement would reflect this
and net income would be reported more accurately. As illustrated by AK Steel and Exxon Mobil,
the differences in net income do not become as pronounced until prices start to rise. In this type
of high growth environment, firms who have high growth products have the option to pay
substantially less tax if they chose to use the LIFO method.
The use of LIFO creates an inferior balance sheet. The balance sheet shows all the assets,
liabilities, and owner’s equity of a firm. Under LIFO, inventory is significantly understated; all
the items in inventory are recorded at older costs. This discrepancy causes an inflated LIFO
reserve, and thus a significant increase in the cost of goods sold and a reduction in net income,
reflected in the income statement. The adverse effect on the balance sheet and income statement
are major reasons to argue for the repeal of the LIFO method. A major push is for more
transparent and comparative financial statements.
It would seem logical that due to the tax benefits of using LIFO, more firms would begin
to use that inventory valuation method. However, as stated earlier, the overall trend in the
marketplace over the years is a declining use of LIFO (only 4% of publicly traded firms use
LIFO). There are several reasons for this trend. Some firms may anticipate the adoption of IFRS
and make the appropriate changes sooner rather than later in order to ease the transition to LIFO.
Also, some firms may chose to switch methods in order to take advantage of the benefits in
financial accounting of using FIFO over LIFO (described in an earlier part of the analysis).
However, the main reason a firm will switch inventory methods is to get the tax benefit from that
23
method. Firms receiving a better benefit under LIFO will keep using LIFO, and vice versa (each
company is unique).
Future of LIFO
The possibility of a worldwide accounting standard has increased discussions about LIFO
and its validity. IFRS supports fair valuation principles and thus does not allow the use of
LIFO.28 If the U.S. were to adopt IFRS, LIFO would be banned because, as described earlier,
LIFO is not a permissible inventory method.
LIFO faces two major opponents: IFRS and Congress. In recent years, Congress has
made attempts to abolish LIFO, especially in the wake of rising oil prices. In 2006, the first
proposal was made by Republicans to repeal LIFO and have the “oil companies pay for the
energy relief, including $100 rebate to compensate taxpayers for higher gas prices.29 This
proposal was dropped and new hearings were held. LIFO faced further opposition in 2006, and
in 2007 Congressman Charles Rangel proposed the repeal of LIFO to raise approximately $107
billion over 10 years to help pay for other provisions. In addition, he proposed to cut the
corporate tax rate to 30.5%, which would significantly reduce taxes for corporations. He contests
that the effective corporate tax rate is currently at 30.5% because there are loopholes, such as
LIFO, that allow firms to avoid paying all of their taxes. He suggests that if loopholes such as
LIFO were repealed, a tax rate of 30.5% should be adopted.30 During the 2008 election, LIFO
remained a topic of discussion. Senator McCain “proposes elimination of corporate welfare,
explicitly including LIFO” and Obama “would likely agree with repeal.”31
28 Kewalramani, Sunil. " Convergence of Ifrs, US Gaap and Indian Gaap and Its Impact on Indian Companies
Listing in U.s and American Companies Listing in India." Concept Paper, 2 Nov. 2008. Convergence with
IFRSs in India. 21 Nov. 2008 <http://www.articlesbase.com/accounting-articles/convergence-of-ifrs-us-gaap-andindian-
gaap- and-its-impact-on-indian-companies-listing-in-us-and-american-companies-listing-in-india-
627587.html>.
29 Plesko, George, “Does LIFO have a future?” Presentation at the University of Illinois Tax Symposium, October
2008.
30 McIntyre, Bob. "Congressman Rangel’s Tax Bill Would Make the Tax Code Simpler & Fairer — and the
Changes Are All Paid For." Citizens for Tax Justice 2 Nov. 2007. 21 Nov. 2008 <CTJ - Citizens For Tax Justice pdf/rangelbill.pdf>.
31 Ibid. 29
24
Repealing LIFO will result in increased government revenue and additional costs for
firms, if implemented before the IFRS Standard is adopted. For example, ideally, taxes should be
collected from a wide base at lower rates. However, “to be able to collect the revenue from LIFO
repeal, Congress must repeal it before firms adopt IFRS. If they wait, the revenue will become
part of the base.”32 In order to facilitate the switch away from LIFO, analysts such as Professor
Plesko suggest Congress attempt to create a large base (including all income with few
deductions) taxed at a relatively low rate. In addition, Plesko and associates propose Congress
provide firms with an extended time to pay tax on this uncollected revenue.33 However, this
needs to be done before the IFRS method is adopted because once IFRS is adopted, the
unreported revenue will become part of the new base under IFRS and taxed as such thereafter
and Congress would not be able to use that revenue to offset other tax charges.
Effects of Repeal
According to supporters of LIFO, the abolishment of LIFO would have a negative impact
on the economy. For example, Alan Viard, of the American Enterprise Institute, suggests “that
LIFO generally advances economic efficiency by preventing inventory from being taxed more
heavily than other types of capital.” The argument rests on the assumption that inventory is an
investment, similar to PP&E, and thus should be taxed as such. Viard claims that inventories are
taxed at an effective rate similar to that of PP&E, but if FIFO is used (which will likely be the
result if IFRS is adopted), inventory will be taxed at a higher effective rate. One solution the
author proposes is to abolish the book tax conformity rule. As a result, firms would still be able
to use the LIFO method to keep the effective tax rate similar to that of PP&E and firms would
have the option of using FIFO for other aspects of financial accounting.34
32 Ibid. 29
33 Klienbard et al. at p. 252
34 Viard at p. 4
25
Other concerns firms have over the abolishment of the LIFO method is their ability to
pay all of the taxes they owe. Moreover, the increase in inventories could lead to consumer price
increases which could have an adverse effect on the business. However, according to Klienbard,
et al., LIFO repeal could be successfully implemented with few adverse effects for a number of
reasons.
LIFO repeal will only affect a small number of companies. As stated previously, 4% of
publicly traded firms report a LIFO reserve, therefore, relatively few firms will have to pay the
additional tax. Moreover, Congress will likely work with firms to broaden the base, lower rates,
and spread out payments over a reasonable period of time so that the company can find ways to
pay without putting a great deal of strain on the immediate business. Also, the balance sheet will
not be adversely affected. This is because inventories will be reported at appropriate values
(higher values, which will strengthen the balance sheet). In addition, firms will be able to benefit
from increases in cash once they adopt FIFO and begin to effectively manage smaller inventories
through systems such as the JIT system. This may be expensive for firms; however, LIFO does
not provide the same incentive to efficiently manage inventory because the revenues are simply
matched against current market prices. The use of a JIT system is needed for firms using FIFO
because these firms need to track inventory more closely. The JIT system can lead to reduced
costs and a higher turnover ratio. Thus, in the long run, firms can save by implementing FIFO
inventory method.
In terms of facing competition in the wake of LIFO repeal, firms who currently use LIFO
will not be at a disadvantage when compared to firms who do not use LIFO because “firms using
LIFO do not appear to use LIFO costs for pricing or other businesses decisions, implying the
ability of a U.S. firm to compete is already independent of the availability of LIFO.”35
Furthermore, multinational firms will not struggle under IFRS because they have grown
accustomed to working with IFRS rules abroad. Therefore, firms’ concerns over the abolishment
of LIFO should be able to be sufficiently addressed.
35 Ibid. 33
26
Conclusion
In this paper I have examined the LIFO inventory accounting method and the financial
statement effects. The implementation of LIFO came during a period of economic frustration, a
rise in big business, and a rise in support from the accounting profession. The fact that LIFO
aided firms against the volatile inventory fluctuations during the time of the Great Depression
does not make it a proper accounting method.
The use of LIFO results in a significant amount of uncollected tax on profits because of
the understatement of net income. Not only is the income statement affected because of the
overstatement of the cost of goods sold and the understatement of net income, but the balance
sheet is also affected because of the undervalued inventory. The effects to the income statement
and balance sheet distort important financial ratios used in comparing firms. As a result, the
transparency and comparability of the financial statements and the use of LIFO became a topic
of debate. In recent years, proposals have been released that support the repeal of LIFO.
However, there have been legitimate concerns over the abandonment of LIFO. For
example, the cost to each firm is a major issue Congress must address. Some feel that these
concerns can be easily addressed with aid from Congress and that the abandonment of LIFO is
necessary in order to increase comparability of financial statements. Charles Rangel’s tax
proposal has received a great deal of attention and is a major step in the direction of LIFO repeal.
The future of LIFO is still uncertain, but there is a great deal of evidence that suggests LIFO may
not continue into the future.
An Analysis of LIFO inventory valuation
Joseph L. Romeo
Honors Accounting Thesis
December 5, 2008
2
Table of Contents
I. Introduction…………………………………………….3
II. The History of Inventory Accounting…………………4
III. A Closer Look at Inventory Valuation Methods……..7
IV. The LIFO Debate-Proponents………………………....9
V. The LIFO Debate-Opponents………………………….10
VI. LIFO and the Effect on Financial Ratios……………..16
VII. LIFO Usage over the Past 10 Years…………………...18
VIII. Future of LIFO………………………………………....23
IX. Effects of Repeal………………………………………..24
X. Conclusion……………………………………………....26
3
An Analysis of LIFO inventory valuation
Introduction
Inventory accounting is one of the topics to be discussed as the U.S. contemplates
adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The U.S. operates in a global
economy; a main goal of IFRS is to enhance investor comparability of firms by adopting one set
of accounting standards. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently released a
statement justifying the adoption of IFRS and provided a timetable for this action. According to
the news release, large, multinational institutions are allowed to switch to IFRS as early as
December 2009; however, the SEC would not make an official ruling on the mandatory adoption
of IFRS until 2011. The adoption of IFRS will dependent on certain factors, or “milestones.” In
other words, the SEC will not implement a mandatory adoption of LIFO unless it is in the best
interest of the public and investors. These milestones include: “improvements in accounting
standards, the accountability of funding of the International Accounting Standards Committee
(IASC), the improvement in the ability to use interactive data for IFRS reporting, education and
training related to IFRS, limited early use of IFRS where this would enhance comparability for
U.S. investors, the anticipated timing of future rulemaking for the Commission, and the
implementation of the mandatory use of IFRS by U.S. issuers.”1 If adopted, IFRS rules would be
implemented in 2014.
The Last in, First out (LIFO) inventory accounting method has received scrutiny over the
years because the method allows firms to understate their net income, and thus pay less in tax.
Under IFRS, LIFO would be banned and firms would be required to use either the FIFO or the
weighted average inventory method. The goal of this report is to provide an analysis of the LIFO
inventory valuation method, which has had significant effects on firms over the years, and
evaluate the decision to eliminate LIFO from U.S. financial reporting.
1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
FR Parts 210, 229, 230, 240, 244 and 249
[RELEASE NOS. 33-8982; 34-58960; File No. S7-27-08]
RIN 3235-AJ93
4
Currently, the majority of firms value their inventory using one of two methods, the LIFO
method or the First in, First out valuation method (FIFO). The use of LIFO instead of FIFO will
have an impact on a firm’s net income, total assets, and noncurrent liabilities. An analysis
comparing firms’ (with LIFO reserves) earnings under LIFO and FIFO for the previous 10 years
will show the magnitude of the effect of using LIFO instead of FIFO and the discrepancies in
income and inventories that arise from using the different methods. The analysis will also reveal
the inconsistencies between the intended goals of the LIFO in inventory accounting method and
how it is actually used. Moreover, the LIFO inventory valuation method will be shown as a tool
for companies to inflate or deflate key financial ratios and look more favorable to shareholders
and investors.
In the next section, I provide a history of inventory accounting, followed by a description
of each inventory accounting method. After, I will discuss the debate amongst proponents and
opponents of LIFO, explore the usage of LIFO over the past 10 years, and discuss the future of
LIFO. To conclude, I will analyze the effects of the LIFO repeal on the U.S. business
environment.
The History of Inventory Accounting
LIFO was not always an acceptable inventory valuation method under Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The implementation of LIFO took years and
tremendous efforts from big business and accountants. LIFO became popularized during the
New Deal when the Roosevelt administration passed unfavorable government policies, such as
the undistributed profits tax, that sought to tax the undistributed profits of corporations in order
to bolster the economy.
In 1918, Congress decided to approve the use of inventory accounting to reflect income.
The only methods approved were the FIFO method and the weighted average method. LIFO had
not come into existence yet; however, the base-stock method became popular at the time and
would become LIFO’s predecessor. The base-stock method accounted for the portion of the
taxpayer’s inventory that was considered necessary to the ongoing business of the concern like it
was a fixed asset and valued it at its original cost basis. When this asset was depleted, new
5
inventory was written down to the original cost basis to replenish the reserve. When the firm
bought new inventory, this was valued at lower of cost or market and sold as such by the firm. In
this way, when items were removed from inventory, they were removed from items most
recently added to total inventory, not the base-stock. As a result, the cost of the reserve would
remain at the original price and not fluctuate as prices rose and fell during the years. 2
Firms argued that the base-stock method of valuation was effective and accurately valued
inventory, especially in the wake of the Great Depression when inventory levels dropped to
extreme lows and then rebounded to higher levels. However, others felt that this inventory
method should only be used by firms who would be significantly affected by changes in
inventory prices. The Internal Revenue Bureau was one major opponent of the use of the basestock
method. The tax rules of inventory accounting were based on the FIFO method. For
example, under this method, inventory had to be valued at “cost, or lower of cost or market, and
applied consistently to the entire inventory.” Also, the “the goods in inventory were deemed to
be the goods most recently purchased.” The base-stock method was not consistent with these
principles and left firms who wanted to use this method with two choices, they could keep two
sets of books, one for stockholders, and one for tax authorities, or they could take their case to
court, which is what several firms chose, including Kansas City Structural Steel. 3
Kansas City Structural Steel was the first company to actively lobby for the
implementation of the base-stock method. However, they faced much the same criticism heard
today with regards to the LIFO method. In their decision against the company, the U.S. Supreme
Court stated that the base-stock method was inconsistent with accounting established by
Congress (Kansas Structural Steel Company v. Lucas). The failure of the base-stock method in
the Supreme Court did not deter proponents from continuing to fight for their cause. The basestock
method began to increase in popularity due to economic conditions, the changing role of
the accounting profession, and the increasing role of big business and their discontent with the
New Deal policies.
2 The ideas in this paragraph are from Lessard at p. 2
3 Lessard at p. 3
6
During the Great Depression, firms preferred the FIFO method because under this
method, in periods of declining prices, net income is reduced and thus, taxable income is also
reduced. However, when the economy began to pick up, many members of business community
were looking for a new valuation method that would keep net income low in periods of inflation
and thus reduce their taxable income. Proponents of this method argued that the base-stock
method was the best method because it properly matched costs with revenues. For example, the
inventory that was sold was matched against the market cost of that inventory. In addition,
instead of constantly reporting new values for inventory, the base-stock method would hold the
inventory at a constant value and reduce volatility, thus more accurately reflecting the price of
inventory over the long run. Firms with large inventories began to favor this method because of
the potential tax advantages; however, they would not gain Congress’ support alone. In order for
this method to become an acceptable part of U.S. reporting, large firms needed the support of big
business and accountants. Fortunately, the undistributed profits tax rallied big business behind
LIFO.
The undistributed tax profit initiated by the Roosevelt Administration and the push for
the LIFO valuation method complemented each other during 1936. The tax was implemented in
order to make up for a shortfall in the budget. “The Treasury Department recommended
eliminating the existing corporate income tax, replacing it with a tax on undistributed profits, and
repealing the income tax’s dividend exemption.”4 The large corporations who opposed the
undistributed profits tax pushed for the adoption of the LIFO method because it would increase
cost of goods sold, lower net income, and reduce required distributions to stockholders. “For
advocates of LIFO, the undistributed profits tax provided additional justification for adoption of
an inventory accounting method that more accurately reflected income and profits.”5 In other
words, if the government was going to tax undistributed profits, an accurate assessment of profits
would be necessary. Despite the success of the LIFO campaign, many of the same arguments
that had plagued the base stock method still remained. For example, opponents were concerned
that if both LIFO and FIFO were acceptable accounting methods, companies would just switch
4 Lessard at p. 7
5 Lessard at p. 7
7
between LIFO and FIFO to reduce taxes. In addition, they were concerned that the use of LIFO
would increase managerial manipulation of earnings. Furthermore, they speculated that the
earnings fluctuations of the oil companies were merely due to change in prices and not to
changes in inventory valuations, as proponents of LIFO argued. 6Despite opposition to LIFO, the
pressures from big business and the accountants’ support of the method were too great. The
Revenue Act of 1939 authorized the use of LIFO for every taxpayer and discarded the
undistributed profits tax. 7
A Closer Look at Inventory Valuation Methods
The goal of GAAP is to create rules in which the inventory sold is matched against the
expense incurred to acquire that inventory. However, as illustrated above, there are differing
views on which costs to associate with inventory. There are three inventory accounting methods
that are used by companies today. The FIFO method matches revenues against the initial cost of
inventory, the LIFO method matches revenues against current cost of inventories, and the
weighted average method matches revenues against the average cost of inventory (the average of
historical and market costs). The majority of companies use the FIFO inventory valuation
method, while some opt to use the LIFO inventory valuation or the weighted average valuation
method. There is no “correct” method; however, the majority of LIFO users are those who report
inventories.
In order to gain a better understanding of the importance of LIFO and FIFO, we must
consider the importance of LIFO to a firm with inventory and a firm without inventory. A key
aspect of LIFO is that it is fundamentally inconsistent with tax principles because it discriminates
between firms with inventories and those without inventories For example, while LIFO is
available to any firm, only firms with inventories can use it. No financial institution has
inventory, and thus does not have the option to benefit from the tax break that LIFO creates.8 As
a result, rules have been put in place to discourage companies from using the LIFO method. For
6 Lessard at p. 8
7 Lessard at p. 11
8 Klienbard, et al. at p. 238
8
example, the book-tax conformity rule states that if a company is using LIFO for tax purposes; it
must use LIFO for all of its financial reporting. The book tax conformity rule attempts to tell
firms that “the cost of realizing that (tax savings) is reporting an inferior balance sheet that
understates the inventory’s cost, and an inferior income statement that fails to report realized
holding gains on sold inventory items.”9 The book-tax conformity rule had to be implemented
because Congress would have been criticized for allowing the sole use of one method over the
other. For example, if Congress had forced firms to use FIFO, “they would have prevented
managers from harvesting the tax benefit, and if they required LIFO, they would have forced
managers to publish inferior” balance sheets and income statements.10 The book tax conformity
rules discourage LIFO without directly stating it cannot be used. However, there are no true
disadvantages for firms because they can elect to disclose LIFO Reserves in the footnotes to the
financial statements. If firms with inventory can use LIFO and report lower net income and thus
lower taxes, and still report financial statements that will not mislead investors, there is no reason
to abandon LIFO. Therefore, LIFO is only used in practice to take advantage of a tax benefit and
has no place in financial accounting.
The LIFO Reserve provides firms with a measure of the benefit from both tax advantages
of LIFO and reporting advantages of FIFO. The LIFO Reserve is calculated by subtracting the
inventory valued under LIFO from the inventory valued under FIFO. The LIFO Reserve is a
critical piece of any LIFO firm’s financial statements because it can be used to calculate the
value of inventory under FIFO and subsequently the net income, liabilities, and key financial
ratios under FIFO. Firms using LIFO disclose a LIFO reserve and any financial statement
calculations under FIFO.
Each inventory method can benefit a company in different ways depending on the
economy. In periods of rising prices, firms that want to receive a tax benefit and are willing to
report a lower net income will opt to use LIFO. In periods of declining prices, firms will benefit
9 Miller, et al. at p. 2
10 Ibid. 9
9
by using the FIFO inventory accounting method. However, it is important to note that firms
cannot switch between the two methods depending on the rise and fall of prices. In order to
switch between methods, a firm needs IRS approval and there are costs associated with this
change that firms would have to constantly undergo even if they were permitted to keep
switching.11 Therefore, a major component in selecting an inventory valuation system is its
implications for taxable income. The LIFO accounting method does not provide any benefit to
the company on its balance sheet (it creates an understatement of inventory); the company only
benefits from a reduction in taxable income, which is just one of many arguments for the
abolishment of LIFO that will be discussed further.
The LIFO Debate-Proponents
Before evaluating the arguments for and against the use of LIFO, it is important to realize
the subjective nature of inventory valuation. Firms can chose different methods to value
inventory and therefore record different prices for inventory and, consequently, cost of goods
sold. For example, proponents of LIFO often have differing views about the nature of the tax
breaks and often emphasize the importance of income statement, whereas opponents will
emphasize the importance of the balance sheet in discussing the use of LIFO.
The result of the use of LIFO generally results in reporting lower net income. The effect
of reporting a lower net income is paying less in taxes; however, proponents of LIFO claim that
these benefits are justified and do not constitute a tax deferral because firms are continuing to
reinvest the money back into the business and there has been “no genuine economic realization
event.”12 In addition, proponents of LIFO classify the method as a temporary difference created
by tax laws, similar to that of the accelerated depreciation methods. In the next sections, I will
explore why these claims are invalid.
Moreover, proponents of LIFO suggest that “LIFO produces more accurate income
statements.”13 The argument is that the LIFO method more accurately matches costs to revenues
11 Dennis-Escoffier at p. 105
12 Klienbard et al at p. 241
13 Katz at p. 1
10
because the cost of goods sold reflects the current prices of the goods in the market. In theory,
this idea seems justified; however, the specific literature of FAS 157 disproves this assessment of
LIFO.
FAS 157 requires firms to value all items in the financial statements-inventory, liabilities,
pension plans, etc. - at fair value. In a business environment where all items are to be recorded at
what they would sell for in the market, recording cost of goods sold at market value would seem
like the correct practice. Under this assumption, firms would have every reason to use LIFO
because not only would this inventory method reduce the amount of taxes payable, but it would
mean that LIFO inventory valuation is consistent with GAAP, more so than firms using FIFO.
However, reporting cost of goods sold at fair value is not consistent with the “fair value”
discussed in FAS 157 because if firms record cost of goods sold at current market prices, the
inventory would have to be marked at historical costs (and therefore undervalued), which is
inconsistent with the policies of FAS 157. LIFO remains an inferior inventory valuation method,
one that is inconsistent with the tax and financial accounting principles. In the preceding section,
we will explore other problems with the LIFO inventory valuation method.
The LIFO Debate- Opponents
The birth of LIFO in the early 20th century as an acceptable valuation method was
supported by accountants and big business and strongly opposed by the Treasury Department.
The LIFO valuation method was created as a valuation method that would assist manufacturing
firms in reporting accurate financial statements. However, there has been speculation that the
reason firms use LIFO is to benefit from a “tax holiday” that results from the use of the method.
The term “tax holiday” is appropriate because under LIFO, firms can report lower net income,
and thus pay less tax. The amount of tax that firms avoid can be calculated by multiplying the
LIFO Reserve by the applicable tax rate. The data collected from Compustat (see below) will
reveal that from 2006-2007, the amount of the LIFO reserve increased from $74 billion to $92
billion (it is important to note the $92 billion LIFO Reserve was aggregated from companies
representing only approximately 4% of all publicly traded companies in 2007). As a result,
uncollected taxes increased from approximately $26 billion to $32 billion (assuming a 35% tax
11
rate). It is important to note that these figures will understate the aggregate LIFO Reserve as
they do not include non-public firms.14 In either circumstance, the financial impact of LIFO on
firms and the economy is substantial.
The LIFO Reserve (in millions)
Year
LIFO
Reserve
% Change in
LIFO
Reserve
Change in
LIFO
Reserve
Net
Income(LIFO)
Net Income
(FIFO) Companies
1996 29,860.43
1997 29,353.51 -2% (506.92) 87,392.11 86,885.19 281
1998 25,230.29 -14% (4,123.22) 95,173.50 91,050.27 285
1999 30,507.47 21% 5,277.18 103,375.20 108,652.38 292
2000 33,971.21 11% 3,463.74 111,321.75 114,785.48 294
2001 27,841.81 -18% (6,129.40) 76,827.27 70,697.87 318
2002 33,137.70 19% 5,295.89 60,475.53 65,771.41 299
2003 34,476.44 4% 1,338.73 107,233.84 108,572.58 305
2004 45,245.73 31% 10,769.29 159,894.39 170,663.68 313
2005 63,388.44 40% 18,142.71 191,805.47 209,948.18 324
2006 66,390.74 5% 3,002.30 225,647.41 228,649.71 329
2007 91,310.44 38% 24,919.71 208,446.19 233,365.89 336
The data was derived using Compustat database for fiscal years 1996-2007. The companies represented include
those reporting a positive LIFO Reserve for each fiscal year.
The ability of a firm to deliberately avoid a tax obligation is inconsistent with tax
principles because it may create a permanent “tax holiday” for these firms (i.e. the gains in
wealth from gains in inventory are never taxed) and only the firms who select this method can
benefit. Some firms have been using LIFO for years. It is no surprise that these firms are the
14 Plesko, George. Committee on Finance, United States Senate. 13 June 2006. 21 Nov. 2008
<www.nam.org/~/media/Files/s_nam/docs/237100/237063.pdf.ashx>.
12
same firms who have been avoiding substantial taxes for years and the same firms who report
unusually high LIFO reserves. These firms have been benefiting from what is known as the
“value creep” effect. The “value creep” effect can be best illustrated by example. Recently, oil
prices skyrocketed. The price per barrel is significantly more than it was a decade ago. However,
firms that are continuing to value their inventory using LIFO are benefiting by not recognizing
this gain. As the price per barrel rises and oil companies match their revenues against current oil
prices, they still have inventory that is valued at historic prices, prices that could be
representative of barrels of oil costing significantly lower than their price today. Therefore, oil
companies are reporting far less net income then they would without LIFO and therefore paying
less in tax.15
As shown in the graph, inventories under LIFO for all companies reporting a LIFO
reserve are significantly understated. I have collected total inventory data from the same firms
analyzed in the preceding table. Below, I provide a comparison of company’s total inventory
under the LIFO and the FIFO methods.
15 Klienbard et al. at p. 243
13
Aggregate Inventory Under LIFO & FIFO (in millions of dollars)
The inventories are much higher for firms using FIFO than those reporting LIFO reserves.
This difference is due to the undervaluaing of inventories that results from the use of LIFO
(Compustat).
The data presented above shows the amount of inventory reported by all companies under
LIFO and FIFO for the years 1997-2007. The inventory under LIFO is undervalued, thus
creating discrepencies in total assets, which can have an effect on key financial ratios and
evaluation of firm performance (described below). The opponents of LIFO often look to the
balance sheet as a key indicator of a firms profitability. However, with the adoption and
widespread use of the LIFO method, investors are more inclined to look at the income statement
as a key performance measure. Katz suggests that “ the International Accounting Standards
Board has pushed companies to move ‘from an income statement view’…noting that a balance
sheet could reflect the cost of goods sold from ’50 years ago’.”16 In other words, the International
Accounting Standards Board recognizes the understatement of inventories on a firm’s balance
sheet as a result of the use of LIFO and is urging others to realize this as well. This
understatement is most pronounced industries with large recent increases in inventory.
16 Katz at p. 1
14
The companies with the largest LIFO reserves are those from the oil and petroleum
sectors. For example, looking at a graph comparing Exxon Mobil’s total inventory under LIFO
and FIFO, we can see that inventory has been significantly understated for years.
Exxon Mobil (in millions of units)
As oil prices keep rising, the LIFO reserve and the gap between LIFO inventory and FIFO
inventory will continue to increase (Compustat).
The proponents of LIFO suggested two arguments to justify the use of LIFO. The first
idea supports the tax deferral on the basis that there would be “no genuine economic realization
event.” However, this claim is contradictory because they are saying that is acceptable for the
firms using LIFO to benefit from a tax-free transfer of money and wealth. In other words
proponents claim that it is acceptable if a firm reports a lower net income, and subsequently uses
the tax benefit to invest in the business. However, this same firm could generate a similar amount
of capital by borrowing from a bank. If they borrowed, they would have to pay interest.
Therefore, a tax benefit (the uncollected tax) is a tax-free transfer of money. Moreover, in
response to the claim that a tax deferral is a result of a temporary tax difference, similar to
accumulated depreciation, opponents state the tax that these firms defer due to accelerated
15
depreciation is paid at a later time; the only way to ever receive tax on inventory monies is to ban
LIFO and collect the tax on the amount of the LIFO Reserve.17
Tax avoidance is a direct result of the LIFO method; however, the method also has the
potential to influence managers to manipulate earnings. For example, in periods of rising prices,
cost of goods sold increase and inventories remain at low levels. Towards the end of a fiscal
year, managers can purchase more inventories “and match these goods against revenues to avoid
charging the old costs to expense.”18 According to Congressman Charles Rangel, the key to
getting back revenue lost is to reduce loopholes such as this one that exist in the system.19
Although acts such as the one described above may be perfectly legal, they are not consistent
with goals of accounting standards. It may not be in the best interest of the firm to have excess
inventory on hand. Therefore, the firm engages in practices that may not increase the value of the
firm just so the firm can take advantage of tax breaks. In addition, firms can use the liquidation
of LIFO layers to “reduce inventories and thereby release earnings.”20 The ability to manipulate
earnings is unique to the LIFO accounting method and is inconsistent with tax principles.
Perhaps the strongest opposition of the LIFO method comes from the evidence that the
absence of taxes, there is little evidence that any taxpayer would use LIFO accounting to fairly
present its financial statements. For example, many companies base their pricing decisions on a
FIFO average. In other words, when firms create a product and need to decide on a fair market
price, they need to take into account the price it costs to make. They cannot choose a value at
which they think will be the market price at time of sale. Also, profit sharing and other bonus
arrangements are not based on LIFO (rewards are based on profits created from matching
revenues achieved to the actual cost of producing the inventory), and the use of a pure LIFO
17 Klienbard et al at p. 241
18 Klienbard at al. at p. 247
19 McIntyre, Bob. "Congressman Rangel’s Tax Bill Would Make the Tax Code Simpler & Fairer — and the
Changes Are All Paid For." Citizens for Tax Justice 2 Nov. 2007. 21 Nov. 2008 <CTJ - Citizens For Tax Justice pdf/rangelbill.pdf>.
20 Klienbard at al. at p. 247
16
system is troublesome for interim periods because estimates must be made for year-end
quantities and prices. Once again, accurately estimating future sales is made easier with FIFO
because firms can easily predict the physical flow of the goods. In addition, if LIFO is used, it is
troublesome to estimate market prices for months ahead of time. It is much easier to create
forward looking statements using the product cost as the cost of goods sold.21
LIFO and the Effect on Financial Ratios
Other arguments for the repeal of LIFO focus on its impact on financial ratios. LIFO has
a significant effect on profitability ratios, activity ratios, and solvency ratios. For example, a
study conducted by Ayres, et al. reveals that for companies reporting a LIFO reserve in 2006,
once converted to FIFO, the profitability ratio went up 325%, the activity and solvency ratios
went down 11.8 % and 10.3% respectively, and the return on common equity, days to sell
inventory, and the current ratio, went up 287%, 48.4%, and 25% respectively.22 As stated earlier,
the majority of the LIFO reserves are concentrated in a relatively few number of companies
within the petroleum and natural gas and steel works industries. The impact of LIFO on financial
ratios in these concentrated firms is significant and misleading to investors and shareholders
alike.
According to Ayres, et al., the LIFO reserve has a significant impact on total assets and
net income for the petroleum and natural gas and steel industries. To verify this claim, data has
been collected from 1975- 2005 reflecting the LIFO Reserve as a percent of reported inventory.
According to research conducted by Ayres, et al., in 2005, the LIFO Reserve accounted for
approximately 27% of the reported inventory. Therefore, if FIFO were used, the inventory would
rise approximately 27%. The impact on such an increase would significantly affect key ratios.
Perhaps the most significant ratio analysts look at is the Return on Equity, which is the return on
assets multiplied by the financial leverage ratio. Firms using LIFO report a higher net income
and a higher inventory; therefore, firms who have opted to use LIFO instead of FIFO are
21 The ideas in this paragraph are from Klienbard et al. at p. 243
22 Ayres et al. at p. 12
17
significantly understating their net income, total assets, and thus their return on equity.23 The
understatement of such a financial ratio will make it easy for the firm to constantly beat earnings
and meet customer expectations. For example, a company using LIFO can liquidate its LIFO
layers in a difficult time and thus meet or beat earnings expectations that are already understated
because of the use of LIFO. Analysts make predictions on firm earnings quarter after quarter, but
these predictions are an understatement of the firm’s potential. The use of FIFO will reveal that
the firm is actually more profitable then it appears. Therefore, in addition to benefiting by paying
less tax, managers who opt to use LIFO can alter the perceptions of their company and create a
different view of the firm in the market.
While investors will be concerned with the ROE, they should also pay some attention to
the financial impact LIFO has on the Days in Inventory Ratio and the Current Ratio. The Days in
Inventory ratio measures how long a company’s assets are in inventory and it is calculated by
dividing 365 by the inventory turnover ratio. The inventory turnover ratio is calculated by
dividing the cost of goods sold by the average inventory. Under LIFO, the cost of goods sold is
overstated, thus yielding a relatively higher inventory turnover which equates to a lower days in
inventory. However, if FIFO was used, cost of goods sold would appropriately consist of lower
priced, older inventory and the inventory turnover would be lower. Subsequently, the days in
inventory ratio would be higher. Therefore, firms would not be turning over inventory as fast as
they appear to. The current ratio measures a firm’s current assets minus a firm’s current
liabilities-it is a solvency ratio. When LIFO inventory valuation is used, taxes are avoided, thus
there is an understatement of long-term debt. If LIFO is repealed, companies would have to
restate their inventories to higher, market price levels. As a result, firms would be forced to pay a
significant amount of taxes on their LIFO reserve. The current ratio would rise because there
would be a gain in current assets (inventory) and the current liabilities would remain the same
because the tax liability would be included in long-term debt.24
23 Ayres et al. at p. 14
24 Ayres et al. at 18-19
18
LIFO Usage over the Past 10 Years
I have collected data from 10K reports using the Compustat Database for companies
reporting a LIFO reserve over the past 10 years (1997-2007). The trend over the past 10 years
has been for more companies to adopt FIFO; however, between the years 1997 and 2007, the
amount of LIFO users appears to be increasing. This occurs because I first collected the net
income and total inventory for companies reporting a LIFO reserve in 2007. Next, I collected the
same data for these companies dating back to 1997. Therefore, some of these companies may not
have used LIFO in the previous years and just recently began to use it. In my calculations, I have
aggregated the LIFO Reserve of all the firms for each year, derived the change in the LIFO
Reserve from the prior year, and added that change to the firms’ aggregate net income in order to
derive the aggregate net income that would have been reported under FIFO. The following
formula illustrates the procedure:
Income under LIFO + LIFO Reserve = Income under FIFO
The aggregate amount of net income for all companies under LIFO and FIFO valuation
methods are summarized in the table located in the previous section and in the graph below. As
discussed earlier, over the past 10 years, firms reporting a LIFO Reserve have been consistently
reporting lower net income in the years in which the LIFO Reserve has increased (the LIFO
Reserve has increased in most of the last 10 years and has increased substantially in 2004, 2005,
and 2007). As a result, taxable income has been lower and the amount of uncollected tax over the
past 10 years is approximately $32 billion for all firms (assuming a 35% average tax rate).
Furthermore, the amount of firms reporting a LIFO reserve for 2007 is approximately
4%; therefore, a significant portion of the LIFO Reserve is aggregated in a relatively small
number of companies. For example, according to research done by Plesko (2008), in 2007, 356
companies reported a LIFO Reserve; 5 companies accounted for 50%, 19 companies accounted
for 75%, and 68 companies accounted for 90% of the reserve.25 In addition, I have conducted
25 Plesko, George, “Does LIFO have a future?” Presentation at the University of Illinois Tax Symposium, October
2008.
19
research pooling data from 2002-2007; the data reveals the percentage of firms using LIFO from
2002-2007 and the aggregate LIFO Reserve for that year. In my findings (summarized below),
the amount of firms using LIFO are decreasing over the years; however, the amount of the LIFO
Reserve is steadily increasing (with the exception of 2002-2003). As prices continue to rise;
firms in certain industries (steel and oil and petroleum) continue to benefit from not recognizing
the gains in their inventories and from matching current revenues with current prices in the
marketplace.
Earnings of Firms Reporting a LIFO Reserve 1997-2007 (in millions)
Firms reporting a LIFO reserve report lower net income then those who use FIFO; lower reported net income
results in uncollected taxes (Compustat).
20
Percent Decrease in Firms using a LIFO Reserve
Year Aggregate LIFO Reserve Firms Reporting a LIFO Reserve
2002 42,419.09 513.00
2003 41,124.76 480.00
2004 54,632.94 454.00
2005 71,515.08 424.00
2006 73,977.01 399.00
2007 91,669.42 344.00
Typically, there has been a trend to move away from the LIFO inventory valuation method, as indicated above.
(Compustat).
According to Ayres, the steel and oil and petroleum industries benefit the most from
LIFO.26 The graph below reveals the LIFO effect on earnings for AK Steel Holding Corporation
and Exxon Mobil. The income for each is significantly higher under the FIFO method in recent
years due the recent increases in prices and therefore, these firms have been consistently paying
less tax. It has been suggested that these companies are holding inventory on their books at
prices from decades ago. By matching current costs with current revenues, these firms can avoid
the vast increases in income that should be reflective of the rise in oil and steel prices.27
26 Ayres et al. at p. 5
27 Klienbard et al. at p. 243
21
Exxon Mobil (in millions)
With the recent increases in oil prices, firms such as Exxon Mobil are benefiting from
the LIFO method. They match current revenues against current costs, and record barrels of
oil at historic prices on their balance sheet (Compustat).
AK Steel (in millions)
AK Steel benefits from increases in steel prices; net income has been generally understated for the past 10 years
(Compustat).
22
As stated previously, proponents of LIFO focus on the income statement as the
predominate indicator of a firm’s profitability and contest that the LIFO method appropriately
matches costs to revenues and thus provides a more accurate income statement than the FIFO
method. Thus far, I have analyzed the effect LIFO has on net income, and the amount of
uncollected tax in addition to the effect LIFO has on inventories. LIFO users often take a
“income statement approach,” meaning they find the accuracy of the income statement to be the
most important financial indicator of a firm’s success. As a result, some suggest that LIFO is a
more conservative approach because of this understatement of net income; however, the reality is
that it is not conservative because it creates a tax breaks for certain firms. If firms were paying
taxes on the correct amount of income over the years, there income statement would reflect this
and net income would be reported more accurately. As illustrated by AK Steel and Exxon Mobil,
the differences in net income do not become as pronounced until prices start to rise. In this type
of high growth environment, firms who have high growth products have the option to pay
substantially less tax if they chose to use the LIFO method.
The use of LIFO creates an inferior balance sheet. The balance sheet shows all the assets,
liabilities, and owner’s equity of a firm. Under LIFO, inventory is significantly understated; all
the items in inventory are recorded at older costs. This discrepancy causes an inflated LIFO
reserve, and thus a significant increase in the cost of goods sold and a reduction in net income,
reflected in the income statement. The adverse effect on the balance sheet and income statement
are major reasons to argue for the repeal of the LIFO method. A major push is for more
transparent and comparative financial statements.
It would seem logical that due to the tax benefits of using LIFO, more firms would begin
to use that inventory valuation method. However, as stated earlier, the overall trend in the
marketplace over the years is a declining use of LIFO (only 4% of publicly traded firms use
LIFO). There are several reasons for this trend. Some firms may anticipate the adoption of IFRS
and make the appropriate changes sooner rather than later in order to ease the transition to LIFO.
Also, some firms may chose to switch methods in order to take advantage of the benefits in
financial accounting of using FIFO over LIFO (described in an earlier part of the analysis).
However, the main reason a firm will switch inventory methods is to get the tax benefit from that
23
method. Firms receiving a better benefit under LIFO will keep using LIFO, and vice versa (each
company is unique).
Future of LIFO
The possibility of a worldwide accounting standard has increased discussions about LIFO
and its validity. IFRS supports fair valuation principles and thus does not allow the use of
LIFO.28 If the U.S. were to adopt IFRS, LIFO would be banned because, as described earlier,
LIFO is not a permissible inventory method.
LIFO faces two major opponents: IFRS and Congress. In recent years, Congress has
made attempts to abolish LIFO, especially in the wake of rising oil prices. In 2006, the first
proposal was made by Republicans to repeal LIFO and have the “oil companies pay for the
energy relief, including $100 rebate to compensate taxpayers for higher gas prices.29 This
proposal was dropped and new hearings were held. LIFO faced further opposition in 2006, and
in 2007 Congressman Charles Rangel proposed the repeal of LIFO to raise approximately $107
billion over 10 years to help pay for other provisions. In addition, he proposed to cut the
corporate tax rate to 30.5%, which would significantly reduce taxes for corporations. He contests
that the effective corporate tax rate is currently at 30.5% because there are loopholes, such as
LIFO, that allow firms to avoid paying all of their taxes. He suggests that if loopholes such as
LIFO were repealed, a tax rate of 30.5% should be adopted.30 During the 2008 election, LIFO
remained a topic of discussion. Senator McCain “proposes elimination of corporate welfare,
explicitly including LIFO” and Obama “would likely agree with repeal.”31
28 Kewalramani, Sunil. " Convergence of Ifrs, US Gaap and Indian Gaap and Its Impact on Indian Companies
Listing in U.s and American Companies Listing in India." Concept Paper, 2 Nov. 2008. Convergence with
IFRSs in India. 21 Nov. 2008 <http://www.articlesbase.com/accounting-articles/convergence-of-ifrs-us-gaap-andindian-
gaap- and-its-impact-on-indian-companies-listing-in-us-and-american-companies-listing-in-india-
627587.html>.
29 Plesko, George, “Does LIFO have a future?” Presentation at the University of Illinois Tax Symposium, October
2008.
30 McIntyre, Bob. "Congressman Rangel’s Tax Bill Would Make the Tax Code Simpler & Fairer — and the
Changes Are All Paid For." Citizens for Tax Justice 2 Nov. 2007. 21 Nov. 2008 <CTJ - Citizens For Tax Justice pdf/rangelbill.pdf>.
31 Ibid. 29
24
Repealing LIFO will result in increased government revenue and additional costs for
firms, if implemented before the IFRS Standard is adopted. For example, ideally, taxes should be
collected from a wide base at lower rates. However, “to be able to collect the revenue from LIFO
repeal, Congress must repeal it before firms adopt IFRS. If they wait, the revenue will become
part of the base.”32 In order to facilitate the switch away from LIFO, analysts such as Professor
Plesko suggest Congress attempt to create a large base (including all income with few
deductions) taxed at a relatively low rate. In addition, Plesko and associates propose Congress
provide firms with an extended time to pay tax on this uncollected revenue.33 However, this
needs to be done before the IFRS method is adopted because once IFRS is adopted, the
unreported revenue will become part of the new base under IFRS and taxed as such thereafter
and Congress would not be able to use that revenue to offset other tax charges.
Effects of Repeal
According to supporters of LIFO, the abolishment of LIFO would have a negative impact
on the economy. For example, Alan Viard, of the American Enterprise Institute, suggests “that
LIFO generally advances economic efficiency by preventing inventory from being taxed more
heavily than other types of capital.” The argument rests on the assumption that inventory is an
investment, similar to PP&E, and thus should be taxed as such. Viard claims that inventories are
taxed at an effective rate similar to that of PP&E, but if FIFO is used (which will likely be the
result if IFRS is adopted), inventory will be taxed at a higher effective rate. One solution the
author proposes is to abolish the book tax conformity rule. As a result, firms would still be able
to use the LIFO method to keep the effective tax rate similar to that of PP&E and firms would
have the option of using FIFO for other aspects of financial accounting.34
32 Ibid. 29
33 Klienbard et al. at p. 252
34 Viard at p. 4
25
Other concerns firms have over the abolishment of the LIFO method is their ability to
pay all of the taxes they owe. Moreover, the increase in inventories could lead to consumer price
increases which could have an adverse effect on the business. However, according to Klienbard,
et al., LIFO repeal could be successfully implemented with few adverse effects for a number of
reasons.
LIFO repeal will only affect a small number of companies. As stated previously, 4% of
publicly traded firms report a LIFO reserve, therefore, relatively few firms will have to pay the
additional tax. Moreover, Congress will likely work with firms to broaden the base, lower rates,
and spread out payments over a reasonable period of time so that the company can find ways to
pay without putting a great deal of strain on the immediate business. Also, the balance sheet will
not be adversely affected. This is because inventories will be reported at appropriate values
(higher values, which will strengthen the balance sheet). In addition, firms will be able to benefit
from increases in cash once they adopt FIFO and begin to effectively manage smaller inventories
through systems such as the JIT system. This may be expensive for firms; however, LIFO does
not provide the same incentive to efficiently manage inventory because the revenues are simply
matched against current market prices. The use of a JIT system is needed for firms using FIFO
because these firms need to track inventory more closely. The JIT system can lead to reduced
costs and a higher turnover ratio. Thus, in the long run, firms can save by implementing FIFO
inventory method.
In terms of facing competition in the wake of LIFO repeal, firms who currently use LIFO
will not be at a disadvantage when compared to firms who do not use LIFO because “firms using
LIFO do not appear to use LIFO costs for pricing or other businesses decisions, implying the
ability of a U.S. firm to compete is already independent of the availability of LIFO.”35
Furthermore, multinational firms will not struggle under IFRS because they have grown
accustomed to working with IFRS rules abroad. Therefore, firms’ concerns over the abolishment
of LIFO should be able to be sufficiently addressed.
35 Ibid. 33
26
Conclusion
In this paper I have examined the LIFO inventory accounting method and the financial
statement effects. The implementation of LIFO came during a period of economic frustration, a
rise in big business, and a rise in support from the accounting profession. The fact that LIFO
aided firms against the volatile inventory fluctuations during the time of the Great Depression
does not make it a proper accounting method.
The use of LIFO results in a significant amount of uncollected tax on profits because of
the understatement of net income. Not only is the income statement affected because of the
overstatement of the cost of goods sold and the understatement of net income, but the balance
sheet is also affected because of the undervalued inventory. The effects to the income statement
and balance sheet distort important financial ratios used in comparing firms. As a result, the
transparency and comparability of the financial statements and the use of LIFO became a topic
of debate. In recent years, proposals have been released that support the repeal of LIFO.
However, there have been legitimate concerns over the abandonment of LIFO. For
example, the cost to each firm is a major issue Congress must address. Some feel that these
concerns can be easily addressed with aid from Congress and that the abandonment of LIFO is
necessary in order to increase comparability of financial statements. Charles Rangel’s tax
proposal has received a great deal of attention and is a major step in the direction of LIFO repeal.
The future of LIFO is still uncertain, but there is a great deal of evidence that suggests LIFO may
not continue into the future.
Similar threads
- Tang Chi Khang
- Kế toán quản trị và Tài chính DN
- Tang Chi Khang
- Kế toán quản trị và Tài chính DN
Xem nhiều
- M
- M
- T
- MTổng hợp các nội dung liên quan đến việc thi tuyển vào ngân hàng!
- Started by mechipchip
- Lượt xem: 3,059,257
- J