Related Posts

You Can Forget That Deal on the Estate Tax

Yes, the brain trust known as the U.S. Senate has managed to prolong the agony on the estate tax. There was a deal on the table as of yesterday but you can forget it! Hard to believe this could happen. Was it a fundamental disagreement on the proposal? Was it because everyone was broken up that Arlen Specter?


No, it’s mostly because some people (the R’s) don’t like that other people (the D’s) are being fraidy cats about not having enough votes:

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the accord, which was all but forged a week ago, began to dissolve Monday night and broke down Tuesday after talks between leaders in both parties.

After talks with Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), they scrapped a plan to move forward with the tax that expired at the end of 2009.

The reasoning, Kyl said, is that Senate Democrats aren’t allowing any legislation to reach the floor that doesn’t have support from the majority of its members.

“We no longer have an agreement because the Democratic side has decided that unless a matter has a guaranteed majority of Democratic votes going in, they’re not going to allow it on the floor, at least not voluntarily,” he said. “So we have to find a way to get a reasonable permanent estate tax reform to the floor where members can vote on it.”

For crissakes. This is this biggest case of “I’m taking my ball and GOING HOME” we’ve seen this week.

Joe Kristan does put the whole thing in perspective however, “Congress has been botching the estate tax for almost ten years now; why should they start getting anything right now?”

Kyl: Senate deal off on estate tax [On the Money/The Hill via TaxProf]
Estate Tax Deal? Not so Fast [Tax Update Blog]

AICPA, Others Ask U.S. Senate to Kindly Keep Their Filthy Mitts Off Accounting Standards

After the wisdom displayed by Senators in the Goldman Sachs hearing a couple weeks ago, it must have become evident to a group of concerned organizations took it upon themselves to voice concern with regard to any elected official that might give consideration to tipping his or her toe into the accounting standard waters.


Enter Son of Ohio, Sherrod Brown (D) who has proposed amendment SA 3853 to the financial regulation reform bill. The amendment would legislate financial reporting standards by forcing companies to “submit reports to the commission under this section record all assets and liabilities of the issuer on the balance sheet of the issuer.”

But don’t worry if you can’t figure out what the value of a liability is because you can just leave it off altogether granted that you don’t mind explaining:

“(i) the nature of the liability and purpose for incurring the liability; (ii) the most likely loss and the maximum loss the issuer may incur from the liability; (iii) whether any other person has recourse against the issuer with respect to the liability and, if so, the conditions under which such recourse may occur; and (iv) whether the issuer has any continuing involvement with an asset financed by the liability or any beneficial interest in the liability.”

While this seems all very well thought out, the CAQ, CFA Institute, AICPA, FEI and a gaggle of others smelled amateur hour and wrote a letter to the old boys in the Senate letting them know, in no uncertain terms, that this pretty much the worst idea they’ve ever heard:

[W]e are concerned with any amendment that would legislate accounting standards, including Brown amendment SA 3853 regarding “Financial Reporting.”
…
The accounting standards underlying such financial statements derive their legitimacy from the confidence that they are established, interpreted and, when necessary, modified based on independent, objective considerations that focus on the needs and demands of investors – the primary users of financial statements.
…
We believe political influences that dictate one particular outcome for an accounting standard without the benefit of a public due process that considers the views of investors and other stakeholders would have adverse impacts on investor confidence and the quality of financial reporting, which are of critical importance to the successful operation of the U.S. capital markets.

So in other words, Sherrod Brown, you can suck it. The FASB might not be hottest piece of ass around but by GOD, it’s what we’ve got. And we’ll be damned if you’re going to propose your hocus pocus American people Main St. financial statement Act.

Accounting Groups Object to Brown Amendment [Web CPA]
Standard_setter_independence_letter_to_Senate

Eisner, Amper Politziner Playing Coy on Merger Rumors

NJBiz reports that New York-based Eisner is planning to merge with Edison, NJ-based Amper Politziner & Mattia LLP. The two firms – ranked 24th and 26th in Accounting Today’s most recent list of Top 100 firms – combined would have 1,200 employes and over $250 million in revenue.

This would shoot the combined firm – working name: Eisner Amper – to 14th on the list (based on revenues) ahead of Clifton Gunderson and hot on the heels of Baker Tilly Virchow Krause.


From the looks of it, the merger would benefit Eisner’s presence in the Garden State while APM would have much better access to the NYC market.

Eisner’s CEO Charles Weinstein wasn’t reached for comment and Amper CEO Howard Cohen told NJBiz, “We have no binding legal documents with any firm at this time,” which, as far as we’re concerned, basically means that it’s a done deal and the lawyers are still sorting out the signing pages.

Of course there’s always the slim chance for a board room blowup and the whole thing gets called off but we’re all hoping for the best.

EXCLUSIVE: Amper Politziner plans merger with Eisner [NJBiz via Web CPA]