Accounting Essay2

Chapter 8 Joint Cost Allocation and Variable Costing A high angle view of oil refinery tanks. iStockphoto/Thinkstock Learning Objectives After studying Chapter 8, you will be able to: Use three different methods to allocate joint product costs. Explain how to handle situations involving byproducts and scrap. Recast absorption costing income statements into variable costing income statements. Reconcile the differences between absorption costing net income and variable costing net income. Understand arguments supporting both variable costing and absorption costing. Should We Hide the Joint Cost Assigned to Hides? Dianne Leader, president of Toco Hills Meatpackers, has just received the first quarter financial statements from her vice-president and controller, Bruce Berger. She immediately sees that while profits from the various meat products are up from the previous quarter, the profits from hides are down considerably. She calls Bruce and asks, "Can you tell me why costs for the hides appear to be so high?" Bruce responds, "No, but I'll look into it and get an answer for you by tomorrow at this time." Like clockwork, Bruce knocks on the president's door, enters, and hands Dianne a onepage report. "Ah, the joint cost allocation to hides seems to be out of line," Dianne says with a frown. "You know," Dianne tells Bruce, "if I had to bet on it, I'd wager some big bucks that you changed the way joint costs are assigned to our products." Indeed, the way joint costs are assigned to joint products that are produced by a company can greatly affect the reported profits from the various products. So, how should these costs be assigned? 8.1 Joint Cost Allocation Production processes can sometimes spawn multiple products from common inputs and processing. These are called joint products. An example is a refinery where crude oil is processed into joint products of gasoline, heating oil, and motor oil. The costs of materials and processing up until individual products are identifiable are referred to as joint costs. This point at which the individual products become identifiable is known as the split-off point. Until this point, the common input is a single product. The joint costs are allocated to the joint products for some product costing purposes such as external financial statement presentation and product pricing. In previous chapters, we have allocated costs using cost drivers that measure inputs such as labor hours or machine hours. However, input measures are not feasible for allocating joint costs since the joint products are not individually distinguishable until the split-off point, and hence, one cannot identify the amount of input associated with each product that emerges at the split-off point. Three common joint cost allocation methods—all based on outputs—are discussed next. Physical Measures of Output Physical measures of output reflect some quantifiable physical characteristics of the joint products. Examples include number of units, weight, liquid volume, and length. The joint costs would be allocated in proportion to each product's output measure. Consider the Vexler Mining Company, which mines ore, and after separating the ore in a smelter, sells the individual outputs to jewelry and industrial manufacturers. Suppose that $400,000 in materials, labor, and overhead was incurred to mine a total of 100,000 ounces of the following three metals: Mineral Amount Gold 10,000 ounces Silver 20,000 ounces Copper 70,000 ounces The joint cost allocations would be as follows: Allocation to gold: (10,000 ÷ 100,000) × $400,000 = $40,000 Allocation to silver: (20,000 ÷ 100,000) × $400,000 = $80,000 Allocation to copper: (70,000 ÷ 100,000) × $400,000 = $280,000 This method is generally simple to use, but has two potential major drawbacks. First, the outputs may have different units of measure. For instance, consider a petroleum refinery that produces gasoline and paraffin from a joint process. A common measure for gasoline, a liquid, would be gallons; for paraffin, a solid, a common measure would be pounds. A second limitation is that physical measures may be unrelated to the profitability of the joint products. Why is this an important consideration? The reason relates to why joint costs are incurred. Since joint costs are incurred because of the value that will be received from selling the joint products, the allocation of these joint costs should be related to the products' values. For Vexler Mining Company, 70 percent of the joint cost was allocated to copper. Suppose, however, that gold accounts for 90 percent of the three metals' total revenues. Clearly, the gold is what motivates Vexler to spend $400,000 to mine the ore, yet it receives only 10 percent of the joint costs, while copper is charged with seven times as much. Relative Sales Value The relative sales value (RSV) approach allocates joint costs in proportion to the joint products' total sales values at the split-off point. Assume the following sales values for Vexler Mining Company's joint products: Mineral Sales values Gold $500,000 Silver 200,000 Copper 100,000 Under the RSV method, the joint cost allocations would be as follows: Allocation to gold: ($500,000 ÷ $800,000) × $400,000 = $250,000 Allocation to silver: ($200,000 ÷ $800,000) × $400,000 = $100,000 Allocation to copper: ($100,000 ÷ $800,000) × $400,000 = $50,000 Net Realizable Value A potential problem with the RSV approach is that sales prices at the split-off point may not be readily available. Moreover, there might not even be a market for one or more of the joint products at the split-off point. Further processing may be necessary to sell some products. The net realizable value (NRV) method uses approximations of sales values at the split-off point. NRV is the total sales revenue of the product in its final form less any separable costs. The latter consist of costs incurred after the split-off point, and as such, can be traced to the individual products. Separable costs include processing costs, selling costs, and disposal costs. Suppose that after Vexler Mining Company smelts its ore, it incurs some costs to get the metals ready for sale to manufacturers. These separable costs, the products' revenues, and the resulting NRVs are as follows: Mineral Separable costs Revenues NRV Gold $10,000 $550,000 $540,000 Silver 12,000 252,000 240,000 Copper 15,000 135,000 120,000 For the NRV method, the joint cost allocations would be as follows: Allocation to gold: ($540,000 ÷ $900,000) × $400,000 = $240,000 Allocation to silver: ($240,000 ÷ $900,000) × $400,000 = $106,667 Allocation to copper: ($120,000 ÷ $900,000) × $400,000 = $53,333 Occasionally, a situation may arise where a product's NRV is negative. When this happens, none of the joint cost should be allocated to that product. Byproducts and Scrap Byproducts and scrap are products that emerge with joint (main) products but have minor sales value compared to the joint products. Byproducts are often processed after the splitoff point, while scrap is usually discarded. The accounting treatment, though, is the same for both byproducts and scrap. Joint costs are not allocated to byproducts or scrap. The rationale for this treatment is that joint costs are incurred to produce the main products—not byproducts or scrap. Revenue from byproducts or scrap is usually handled in one of two ways: Recognize miscellaneous income from the NRVs of byproducts and scrap. Deduct the NRVs of byproducts and scrap from the joint costs that are allocated to the main products. The rationale for the second approach builds on the argument we mentioned for not allocating joint costs to byproducts or scrap. That is, the joint production process is undertaken for the profits to be earned from main products—not byproducts or scrap. Therefore, no profit should be recognized on byproducts or scrap. In effect, the second method shifts any profit (NRV) on byproducts and scrap to the main products by reducing the joint costs assigned to the main products. As an example, suppose that sulfur is a byproduct at Vexler Mining Company. Using the RSV method, together with the RSVs given earlier for the three joint products, suppose now that sulfur could be sold at the split-off point for $8,000 after incurring separable costs of $2,000. With the miscellaneous income approach, $6,000 ($8,000 - $2,000) in miscellaneous income would appear on Vexler's income statement from the sale of sulfur. Under the alternate approach, joint costs of $394,000 ($400,000 - $6,000) would be allocated to the main products as follows: Allocation to gold: ($500,000 ÷ $800,000) × $394,000 = $246,250 Allocation to silver: ($200,000 ÷ $800,000) × $394,000 = $98,500 Allocation to copper: ($100,000 ÷ $800,000) × $394,000 = $49,250 8.2 Variable Costing Variable costing (also known as direct costing) is an approach to product costing that assigns only variable manufacturing costs (direct materials, direct labor, and variable factory overhead) to items produced. Thus, inventoriable costs are limited to the variable manufacturing costs, and period costs include all fixed costs and variable nonmanufacturing costs. Absorption costing (also known as full costing), the method typically used for external income statement reporting, allocates all manufacturing costs (variable and fixed) to products. This section compares these two costing methods. Contemporary Practice 8.1 Usage of Variable Costing In a survey of 148 German and 130 U.S. companies in a cross section of industries, far more German companies labeled their costing system as variable costing—52 percent versus 21 percent. The director of cost accounting and internal audit at Cliffstar remarked, "We like variable costing because it doesn't 'muddy up' the waters with less controllable fixed overhead." (Krumwiede & Suessmair, 2007, p. 50). Variable costing, like absorption costing, can be used in conjunction with actual, normal, or standard costing systems. For simplicity, we will restrict our discussion in this chapter to situations in which actual costing is used. Characteristics of Variable Costing The two costing methods vary as to the cost elements for product costs, the difference in inventory values, and the difference in profits. These differences all result from one basic item—the treatment of fixed manufacturing costs. Absorption costing includes these costs in product costs while variable costing considers them as period costs to be included with the operating expenses. The following summary contrasts the two costing approaches: Cost category Variable costing Absorption costing Direct materials Product Product Direct labor Product Product Variable factory overhead Product Product Fixed factory overhead Period Product Marketing expenses Period Period Administrative expenses Period Period Variable costing typically uses a contribution margin approach as a reporting format. Variable marketing and administrative costs are included in the computation of the contribution margin. However, variable marketing and administrative costs are not product costs. While we will portray variable costing income statements using the contribution format, we will use the traditional format for the absorption costing income statements. A comparison of the two approaches appears below: Variable costing Absorption costing Sales revenue Sales revenue –Variable cost of goods sold –Cost of goods sold –Other variable costs =Gross margin =Contribution margin –Selling & administrative expenses –Fixed manufacturing costs =Net income –Fixed nonmanufacturing costs =Net income Deciding between variable costing and absorption costing has an impact on inventory values and profits because of the variation in the treatment of fixed factory overhead. Although the profit can differ between the two costing methods, profit under variable costing is not always higher or lower than absorption costing. The difference between profits under the two methods is determined by the relationship of production to sales. Assuming that the fixed manufacturing costs per unit remain the same from one period to the next, we have three possibilities, as follows: Net Income Production units equal sales units AC = VC Production units greater than sales units (building inventory) AC > VC Production units less than sales units (liquidating inventory) AC < VC AC = Absorption costing VC = Variable costing The magnitude of any difference in profits is a function of the fixed manufacturing costs per unit and the changes in inventory levels, as we will discuss later. Comparing Variable Costing and Absorption Costing Let's assume that Morris the Florist sells one type of floral arrangement. In its first year, 2014, Morris the Florist produced 100,000 arrangements and sold 75,000 at $25 each. The costs for the year are: Production costs (per unit): Materials $3.00 Labor 8.00 Variable overhead 5.00 Fixed overhead ($200,000/100,000 units) 2.00 Marketing and administrative costs: Variable $1.00 per unit sold Fixed $150,000 The absorption costing income statement that reflects these results is as follows: Absorption costing income statement for the year ended December 31, 2014 Sales revenue ($25 × 75,000) $1,875,000 Cost of sales: Variable ($16 × 75,000) $1,200,000 Fixed ($2 × 75,000) 150,000 1,350,000 Gross profit $525,000 Marketing and administrative expenses: Variable ($1×75,000) $75,000 Fixed 150,000 225,000 Net Profit $300,000 A variable costing income statement would be as follows: Variable costing income statement for the year ended December 31, 2014 Sales revenue ($25×75,000) $1,875,000 Variable Costs: Production ($16 × 75,000) $1,200,000 Marketing and administrative ($1 × 75,000) 75,000 1,275,000 Contribution margin $600,000 Fixed costs: Production $200,000 Marketing and administrative 150,000 350,000 Net Profit $250,000 Notice that the variable costing profit is lower than the profit from absorption costing. Why does this happen? The next section answers this question. Reconciliation of Variable and Absorption Costing The difference in net profit figures between absorption costing and variable costing is due solely to the treatment of fixed production costs. Absorption costing includes those costs in the inventory costs; variable costing treats them as expenses to be charged to the period incurred. During any given time period, the amount of fixed costs in inventory will increase or decrease as production differs from sales. If production is greater than sales (as is the case with Morris the Florist in 2014), fixed costs in the ending inventory are deferred to future periods under absorption costing. Alternatively, all fixed costs are expensed under variable costing. Therefore, absorption costing will show a higher net profit. Conversely, if sales are greater than production, fixed costs in the beginning inventory are expensed in the current period and added to the fixed costs incurred during the current period. Therefore, fixed costs in the income statement under absorption costing are higher than under variable costing, and the result is a lower net profit for absorption costing. In the simplified case in which fixed overhead costs per unit are the same in beginning and ending inventories, the difference in net profits is exactly equal to the change in inventory units times the fixed overhead rate per unit. For Morris the Florist, the change in inventory is: Units produced 100,000 Units sold 75,000 Increase in inventory 25,000 Using a fixed overhead rate of $2 per unit, the difference in net profits is: $2 × 25,000 units = $50,000. Let's check this result: Absorption costing net profit $300,000 Variable costing net profit 250,000 Difference $50,000 When the fixed overhead rates are different in beginning and ending inventories, the reconciliation of net profit figures is performed as follows: Absorption costing net profit + Fixed overhead in beginning inventory Fixed overhead in ending inventory = Variable costing net profit To illustrate, suppose that in 2015, Morris the Florist produces 80,000 floral arrangements and sells 100,000. We will presume the same total fixed costs, unit variable costs, and selling price as in 2014. Morris the Florist uses a FIFO cost flow. As a result, the fixed overhead per unit produced during 2015 is $2.50 ($200,000/80,000). The 2015 absorption costing income statement would be as follows: Absorption costing income statement for the year ended December 31, 2015 Sales revenue ($25 × 100,000) $2,500,000 Cost of sales: Variable ($16 × 100,000) $1,600,000 Fixed [($2 × 25,000) + ($2.50 × 75,000)] 237,500 1,837,500 Gross Profit $ 662,500 Marketing and administrative expenses: Variable ($1 × 100,000) $100,000 Fixed 150,000 250,000 Net profit $412,500 Note that the fixed portion of cost of sales is consistent with the FIFO cost flow assumption. The first 25,000 units come from 2014 production, which had a unit cost of $2 for fixed overhead; the remaining 75,000 units come from 2015 production, which had a unit cost of $2.50 for fixed overhead. The 2015 variable costing income statement would be as follows: Variable costing income statement for the year ended December 31, 2015 Sales revenue ($25 × 100,000) $2,500,000 Variable costs: Production ($16 × 100,000) $1,600,000 Marketing and administrative ($1 × 100,000) 100,000 1,700,000 Contribution margin $ 800,000 Fixed costs: Manufacturing $200,000 Marketing and administrative 150,000 350,000 Net profit $450,000 We reconcile the 2015 net profits as follows: Absorption costing net profit $412,500 + Fixed overhead in beginning inventory ($2 × 25,000) 50,000 – Fixed overhead in ending inventory ($2.50 × 5,000) (12,500) = Variable costing net profit $450,000 The reconciliation of net profits between the two costing methods is independent of inventory cost flow assumptions. A company can use FIFO, LIFO, or some average cost method; the reconciliation of net profits follows the same procedures. Another observation about the difference between the two methods relates to the profit patterns over time with respect to production and sales strategies. Let's consider the case of a constant production schedule over time while sales fluctuate each period. The absorption costing net income will fluctuate up and down with sales, but the constant production will have a leveling effect on the swings. The peaks will not be as high nor as low as the corresponding sales changes. Variable costing net income, on the other hand, will have swings that match those of sales, in both direction and relative magnitude. For the situation where production fluctuates while sales remain rather constant, a different picture appears. Absorption costing net income will fluctuate with production, in both direction and relative magnitude. Variable costing net income will remain constant, corresponding with sales levels. While absorption and variable costing methods yield different profit figures during periods when units sold do not equal units produced, these are timing differences. If over the course of several time periods, aggregate production equals aggregate sales, then the aggregate profits will be the same for both costing methods despite differences in profits during specific periods. Arguments for Either Costing Method Neither variable costing nor absorption costing is correct or incorrect. Their usefulness correlates with management's attitudes and with philosophies of organizational behavior. Some companies will find variable costing extremely useful, while other companies will find it less meaningful. Any manager can make a valid case for either variable or absorption costing. The primary arguments, for and against, are discussed next. Short Term Versus Long Term. Those who favor variable costing—let's call them the "variable costers"—believe it focuses on the short-term consequences of accounting and is more realistic of the way managers make decisions. Those who favor absorption costing—let's call them the "absorption costers"—assume that long-run performance is more important and that absorption costing more appropriately reflects long-term consequences. Unethical Behavior By Managers. Variable costers assume that managers can easily adapt to a new accounting method with little additional cost. They further argue that managers will be rewarded for playing games with absorption costing reports. They specifically refer to a manager's ability to manipulate net profit by increasing or decreasing inventory levels that are valued under absorption costing. The absorption costers admit that occasional short-term decisions (e.g., amount of ending inventory to hold) will be made incorrectly. However, over the long term, the mistakes will be more obvious, and the "games" will be discovered by competent superiors. Absorption costers might assert that unethical managers cannot be suddenly rehabilitated by a change in accounting methods. Contemporary Practice 8.2 Earnings Manipulation with Absorption Costing An experiment with individuals in graduate and executive education managerial accounting classes, who averaged about six years of full-time work experience, tested whether they would manipulate earnings in an absorption costing setting. Specifically, unit costs could be lowered by merely producing unneeded units. This would lower cost of goods sold, and in turn, increase the reported profit. The study estimated that about 51 percent of the participants would intentionally overproduce in order to meet a targeted pretax income figure. (Schneider, 2004) Variable Versus Fixed Costs. Variable costers believe that costs can be easily and meaningfully divided into variable and fixed categories and that using a contribution margin is much more useful for planning and decision making and for control and performance evaluation. Since absorption costing is primarily for external reporting purposes, absorption costers do not see this distinction as meaningful for reports. They will also argue that managers can still make the cost behavior distinctions for internal purposes. They also point out that the variable/fixed split is not easily made in practice.izes ac External Versus Internal Reports. Financial statement reporting using generally accepted accounting principles, as well as tax reporting for the Internal Revenue Service, require absorption costing. Variable costers argue that allowing external reporting requirements to dominate how useful and meaningful information should be reported is not a valid philosophy for competent management. Since information should be geared to the needs of management, external requirements should not drive the internal accounting system. Absorption costers argue that to have one set of requirements for external reporting and another set for internal reporting gives managers conflicting and inconsistent information. It also forges an image that the company is hiding something in the two approaches. Effects of New Manufacturing Environments Since the major variation between the two methods is the treatment of fixed costs as product or period costs, the difference in net profits disappears when little or no inventory of work in process or finished goods exists. For companies implementing JIT production procedures, inventories will be eliminated or substantially reduced. Hence, the particular costing method chosen loses significance in this environment. Also, this controversy is irrelevant to service organizations that do not carry inventories. In automated production environments, whether JIT or not, the bulk of labor and factory overhead costs is fixed. Variable costs represent a low percentage of total manufacturing costs. In these environments, therefore, variable costing loses much of its appeal because the product cost will be a small fraction of the total manufacturing cost. Chapter Summary Joint costs are allocated to joint products using either physical measures of output, the relative sales value method, or the net realizable value method. No joint costs are allocated to byproducts or scrap, and their net realizable values are either treated as miscellaneous income or as deductions from the costs allocated to the main products. Variable costing includes only variable manufacturing costs as an element of product cost. The traditional method of income statement preparation is called absorption costing. It includes fixed manufacturing costs as an element of product cost. As a result of this difference, net profit under the two methods will not necessarily be the same. Anytime production exceeds sales, absorption costing yields a higher net profit; when sales exceeds production, variable costing yields a higher net profit. The arguments for and against using either costing method apply to individual situations and management philosophy. Neither method is inherently correct or incorrect. Problem for Review Capland Company processes tobacco into cigarettes and cigars. The normal volume of tobacco that can be processed per month is 30,000 pounds. Including the cost of tobacco, the variable cost in the process is $0.60/lb. The monthly fixed costs are $5,000 for the processing department. The process yields 70% unfiltered cigarettes, 20% cigars, and 10% waste. The unfiltered cigarettes are fitted with filters in the assembly department to obtain finished cigarettes. A pound of tobacco is combined with 0.2 pounds of filtering material to obtain 1.2 pounds of cigarettes. Including the filtering material, the variable cost of processing a pound of cigarettes in the assembly department is $0.25. The assembly department's fixed cost is $2,100 per month. The cigars must be assembled as well. The variable cost of assembling cigars amounts to $0.45/lb., while the fixed costs are $700 per month. The finished cigarettes are sold to a packaging company for $1.40/lb. and the cigars are sold for $1.62/lb. Question: Use the NRV method to determine the amount of joint cost that would be assigned to the output from a 30,000 pound batch of tobacco. Solution: The total amount of joint cost is determined as follows: ($.60 × 30,000) + $5,000 = $23,000 This cost is allocated to the 6,000 pounds of cigars (.2 × 30,000) and 25,200 pounds of cigarettes (.7 × 30,000 × 1.2), but not to the 3,000 pounds of waste (.1 × 30,000). The NRVs are calculated as follows: NRV of cigarettes = [25,200 × ($1.40 - $.25)] - $2,100 = $26,880 NRV of cigars = [6,000 × ($1.62 - $.45)] - $700 = $6,320 The allocation of the joint cost is performed as follows: Allocation to cigarettes = $23,000 × ($26,880 / $33,200) = $18,622 Allocation to cigars = $23,000 × ($6,320 / $33,200) = $4,378 Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition. absorption costing byproducts direct costing full costing joint costs joint products net realizable value (NRV) relative sales value (RSV) scrap separable costs split-off point variable costing Questions for Review and Discussion Name the three methods for allocating joint costs. Explain the practical problem that sometimes prevents the use of the relative sales value method. Differentiate between variable costing and absorption costing. How is it possible to increase net profit using absorption costing when sales are not increasing? A company had a highly labor-intensive manufacturing process. Recently it implemented robotics and a number of other technological changes that made the process capital intensive. What impact would this change make on the inventory valuations for variable costing and for absorption costing? Exercises 8-1. Joint Costs Allocated to Services. Ron Morray & Associates, a CPA firm, provides audit, tax, and consulting services. The firm spent $800 recruiting a particular client, Bernard Birnbaum, who contracted for all three services after a round of golf, a sumptuous meal, and a bottle of fine wine. After the firm's work for Birnbaum was completed, the following information was available: Traceable Costs Service Fees Charged Labor Overhead Audit $14,000 $5,200 $4,000 Tax 10,000 3,000 2,300 Consulting 22,000 9,100 5,500 Question: Using the NRV method, allocate the joint cost to the three services. 8-2. Joint Cost Allocations and Ending Inventories. Falk Corporation crushes and refines mineral ore into three products in a joint operation. There were no beginning inventories of any products. Joint costs are $420,000, resulting in the production of 20,000 pounds of Adelia, 60,000 pounds of Dalewood, and 100,000 pounds of Bramble. Adelia is processed further at a cost of $100,000 and Dalewood is processed further at a cost of $200,000. Bramble does not require any further processing. The results for the current year are: Adelia: 19,000 lbs. sold at $20/lb. Dalewood: 59,000 lbs. sold at $6/lb. Bramble: 99,000 lbs. sold at $1/lb. Question: Determine the cost of the ending inventories using the NRV method to allocate joint costs. 8-3. Joint Cost Allocation and Income Statements. Lowenstein Promotions, Inc. produces rock concerts across the country. A recent concert by The Twins was also recorded as a CD. The live concert attracted 9,000 people who paid $35 per ticket and the CD is projected to sell 26,000 units at $11 each. Joint costs of the concert and CD amounted to $300,000. Separable costs are $2 per ticket and $3 per unit for the CDs. Questions: Comment on the feasibility of allocating the joint costs based on physical measures. Using the NRV method, compute the amount of joint costs to allocate to the live concert and to the CDs. Prepare product-line income statements for the live concert and for the CDs. 8-4. Absorption Costing. Leff Corporation incurred the following costs during the year: Direct Materials $10,000 Direct Labor 30,000 Other Costs: Variable Fixed Manufacturing $15,000 $25,000 Marketing 5,000 2,000 Administrative 1,000 6,000 Question: Under absorption costing, determine the amount that would be classified as product costs. 8-5. Determining Ending Inventory. Natalie Industries uses an absorption costing system. The following data pertain to June: Operating Income $70,000 Beginning Inventory 12,000 units Fixed Overhead Application Rate $2 per unit (May and June) Michael Ross, the owner, has determined that the operating income would be $90,000 under variable costing. Question: How many units are in the June ending inventory? 8-6. Inventory and Cost of Goods Sold. Karchava Industries is headquartered in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, and has three manufacturing plants near the Black Sea. Nino Aladashvili, the company's cost accountant, reports the following data for October: Units: Beginning inventory 135,000 Production ? Sales 250,000 Ending inventory 142,000 Costs (in lari): Beginning inventory 7,000,000 Variable manufacturing costs 19,000,000 Fixed manufacturing costs 8,000,000 Variable selling & administrative costs 9,000,000 Questions: Compute the unit cost of the inventory produced during October using variable costing. Compute the unit cost of the inventory produced during October using absorption costing. If the company uses absorption costing and assumes a FIFO cost flow, what is the cost of goods sold for October? 8-7. Variable Costing Income Statement. Nahmias Bee Hives produces honey for sale to various food manufacturers. The income statement for last year, prepared on an absorption costing basis, is as follows: Number of containers produced and sold 250,000 Sales revenue $2,000,000 Cost of goods sold 1,500,000 Gross profit $ 500,000 Operating expenses (includes variable costs of $125,000) 225,000 Profit before income taxes $ 275,000 Income taxes 110,000 Profit after income taxes $ 165,000 The fixed production cost per container of honey was $2.00. Question: Revise the income statement on a variable costing basis. 8-8. Variable Costing and Inventory Decrease. Gershon Memory Chips reduced its finished goods inventory in 2013 from 80,000 units at the beginning of the year to 50,000 units at the end of the year. Fixed manufacturing overhead of $1,360,000 was incurred, and 170,000 units were produced during the year. The fixed overhead cost per unit was the same as in 2012. Variable manufacturing cost per unit was $9. Each unit of product was sold for $20. Questions: Prepare an income statement for the manufacturing operation in 2013 using absorption costing. Prepare an income statement for the manufacturing operation in 2013 using variable costing. Provide a reconciliation for the difference in profit between the two methods. Comment. 8-9. Joint Cost Allocation Methods. Wooly Jumbuck Enterprises purchases raw materials and processes them into more refined products. In July, Wooly Jumbuck purchased raw materials for $40,000. Conversion costs of $60,000 were incurred up to the split-off point, at which time two salable products were produced: Product A and Product B. Product B can be further processed into Product C. The July production and sales information were: Production Sales Sales price Product A 1,200 tons 1,200 tons $50 per ton Product B 800 tons Product C 500 tons 500 tons $200 per ton All 800 tons of Product B were further processed, at an incremental cost of $20,000, to yield 500 tons of Product C. There were no byproducts or scrap from this further processing of Product B. There is an active market for Product B. Wooly Jumbuck could have sold all of its July production of Product B for $75 per ton. Questions: Allocate the joint costs using the relative sales value method. Allocate the joint costs using the physical measures method. Allocate the joint costs using the net realizable value method. 8-10. Joint Cost Allocation and Inventory Costs. Jerry's Wine Garden produces three wine products (Red, White, and Rose) as the result of initial joint processing plus separable processing after the split-off point. Records for July show the following: Red White Rose Total Materials used – – – $150,000 Direct labor 70,000 Production overhead cost – – – 100,000 Separable processing costs $50,000 $80,000 $70,000 – Bottles produced 6,000 12,000 6,250 – Bottles sold 4,000 9,000 4,250 – Sales price $50.00 $37.50 $40.00 – Question: Compute the total cost of the ending inventory for each product, assuming no beginning inventory and using the NRV method for joint cost allocation. 8-11. Joint Costs and Divisional Profits. Feldman & Son Products has two divisions, B and J. The company buys its major input for both divisions jointly. Currently, it buys this material in 600-pound lots for $2,000. The material is first passed through a separator process. After separation, Division B gets 300 pounds of chemical Ilan and Division J gets 200 gallons of Emanuel. Division B incurs separate processing costs of $150 to get the chemical ready for sale. Division J incurs a cost of $250 to bottle and package the Emanuel as a shampoo. After the additional processing, Division B sells the 300 pounds of chemicals for $5 per pound and Division J sells the shampoo for $7 per gallon. Question: Compute the profit to be reported by each division if joint costs are allocated on a NRV basis. 8-12. Determination of Sales Value at Split-Off. J. Pepper Industries manufactures three products from a joint process: X, Y, and Z. The following information is provided by the plant manager, Rick Halpern: Product X Product Y Product Z Total Units produced 4,000 2,000 1,000 7,000 Joint cost $36,000 ? ? $60,000 Sales value at split-off ? ? $15,000 $100,000 Separable costs $7,000 $5,000 $12,000 $24,000 Sales value of final product $75,000 $30,000 $20,000 $125,000 Joint costs are allocated using the relative sales value method. Question: Calculate the sales value at the split-off point for Product X. 8-13. Operating Incomes for Two Periods. Schumer Motors manufactures cars and sells them for $24,000 each. The controller, Dick Peppy, provided the following data for November and December: November December Number of cars: Beginning inventory 0 ? Production 500 400 Sales 350 520 Variable costs: Mfg. cost per car produced $10,000 $10,000 Marketing cost per car sold $3,000 $3,000 Fixed costs: Mfg. costs $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Marketing costs $600,000 $600,000 Calculate operating income for November using: Variable costing Absorption costing Assuming a LIFO cost flow, calculate operating income for December using: Variable costing Absorption costing 8-14. Variable Costing and Two Product Lines. Presupuesto Co. manufactures lawn rakes and shovels at its San Juan, Puerto Rico, plant. Data with respect to sales and production have been estimated by Javier Clemente, the controller, for next year as follows: Rakes Shovels Estimated units to be sold 240,000 160,000 Unit selling price $3.50 $6.00 Unit variable cost of manufacturing $1.75 $2.75 Production time per unit of product 10 min. 30 min. The fixed factory overhead of the San Juan plant is apportioned to the products at the rate of $3 per production hour. Total corporate fixed overhead of $300,000 has been apportioned to the San Juan plant, but this is not apportioned to the products. Questions: Assuming a variable costing approach, prepare an income statement that will show for each product line and in total: The contribution margin. The apportioned fixed factory overhead. The profit for each product. The final profit after recognizing apportionment of the corporate fixed overhead. What is the expected total unit cost of each product line without apportioning the corporate fixed overhead? Apportion corporate fixed overhead to each product on the basis of production time. Now, what is the expected total unit cost of each product line? Which unit cost number would be best to use in establishing a cost-based selling price? Why? 8-15. Conversion of Absorption Costing to Variable Costing. Yaffe Electrical Supply Company manufactures electric switches and timing devices in three operating divisions: Utility, Household, and Commercial. An income statement, showing the results for each division, is given for 2014. The company had total fixed manufacturing overhead of $8,900,000. Inventories were increased during the year in anticipation of more sales volume in 2015. Yaffe Electrical Supply Company income statement for the year 2014 (in thousands) Utility Household Commercial Total Net sales $6,200 $5,150 $6,300 $17,650 Costs of goods sold Inventory, beginning $540 $240 $150 $930 Production cost 5,400 4,000 4,200 13,600 Cost of goods available for sale $5,940 $4,240 $4,350 $14,530 Less inventory, ending 900 640 900 2,440 Cost of goods sold $5,040 $3,600 $3,450 $12,090 Manufacturing profit $1,160 $1,550 $2,850 $5,560 The plant controller, Jennifer Barry, believes that profits may be higher than they would be otherwise because of fixed costs being carried over to the next year as a part of inventory. She would like to have the statement revised to a variable costing basis and would like to know the manufacturing contribution margin for each division. Additional analyses show the units and unit variable costs as follows. There are no partially completed units. Utility Household Commercial Units in beginning inventory 30,000 15,000 10,000 Units produced 300,000 250,000 280,000 Units in ending inventory 50,000 40,000 60,000 Unit variable manufacturing cost $6 $6 $5 Questions: Prepare an income statement on a variable costing basis that shows a contribution margin and direct profits by division and in total. Prepare a reconciliation between the variable costing and absorption costing income statements. This reconciliation should show results by division and in total. How much of the fixed cost was carried over to 2015 as a part of ending inventory cost for each division? 8-16. Conversion of Absorption Costing to Variable Costing. Silver Spring Pet Shops purchase a variety of household pets (mostly dogs), and they also breed their own pets, for sale to customers. The following income statement for July 2015 was prepared by the corporate controller, Kay Nyne, using absorption costing: Sales (200 pets) $22,000 Cost of sales: July 1 inventory $5,000 Breeding and purchase costs 10,000 July 31 inventory (2,500) 12,500 Gross Margin $9,500 Fixed selling and administrative expenses (3,700) Operating income $5,800 During 2015, the average unit variable costs have not changed, and fixed "production" overhead has remained at $2,000 per month. During July, 160 pets were either born or purchased by the store owner, Myrna Goldman. Assume that all inventories of pets are "finished"—there is no beginning or ending "work in process." Questions: Prepare an income statement for July using variable costing. Reconcile the absorption and variable costing operating incomes. Case: Linsider Cosmetics Linsider Cosmetics has four manufacturing plants where it processes a chemical, Arborvista, into three products. The process works in such a way that Arborvista is broken down into a high-grade facial cleanser (FC) and a low-grade chemical. The low-grade chemical is then processed into a liquid bath soap (LBS) and a moisturizing skin cream (MSC). All three products are sold to wholesalers that distribute them to retailers, hospitals, and various other institutions. Linsider Cosmetics used 12,000 gallons of Arborvista last month. It cost $300,000 in materials, labor, and overhead to procure Arborvista and turn it into the FC and low-grade chemical. The total cost of producing LBS and MSC from the low-grade chemical was $70,000. The breakdown of production for the month was as follows: FC 10,000 ounces LBS 20,000 ounces MSC 50,000 ounces The sales price of FC is $40 an ounce; of LBS, $10 an ounce; and of MSC, $1 an ounce. Additional processing and selling costs, entirely separate and traceable to each product, amounted to $20,000 for FC, $160,000 for LBS, and $40,000 for MSC. When joint costs are allocated, the net realizable value method is used. There were no beginning or ending inventories in any of the four manufacturing plants. All of the production was sold during the month. Question: Prepare product line income statements through gross profit for each of the three products.