Difference between revisions of "Deferred IR&D Costs - CAS Board and Admiral Rickover"
(→Current FASB, FAS and International Accounting Standards (IAS)) |
(→Current FASB, FAS and International Accounting Standards (IAS)) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
[[File:Economics_of_Defense_Policy_-_Adm._H._G._Rickover_Part_VI_IR&D_Treatment.pdf]] | [[File:Economics_of_Defense_Policy_-_Adm._H._G._Rickover_Part_VI_IR&D_Treatment.pdf]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
. | . | ||
[[Category: CAS 420 - Accounting for Independent Research & Development and Bid & Proposal Costs]] | [[Category: CAS 420 - Accounting for Independent Research & Development and Bid & Proposal Costs]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:39, 22 May 2020
Contents |
Admiral Rickover letters to Elmer B. Staats - Chairman Cost Accounting Standards Board
3 August 1979
...I also agree with the Board that IR&D should be costed in the year incurred.
...I recognize that the Cost Accounting Standards Board has stayed away from issuing opinions on whether IR&D or other costs are allowable. Instead, the Board promulgates standards for measuring and allocation of costs.
15 November 1978
I agree with the Board that IR&D should be costed in the year incurred. If IR&D is considered a cost of doing business, it should be treated as such. This requirement that IR&D be costed in the year incurred provides a consistent basis for all contractors. If contractors are permitted to pick and choose among IR&D projects and set their own standards for when these costs are to be allocated, many will no doubt make these decisions on a basis which will result in maximum allocation to Government contracts. Further, the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Statement No. 2 dated October, 1974, made it clear that for financial accounting purposes that IR&D should be treated as an expense of the current year and not deferred.
Current FASB, FAS and International Accounting Standards (IAS)
File:Economics of Defense Policy - Adm. H. G. Rickover Part VI IR&D Treatment.pdf
.
