Required: 1. Summarize Doug's proposed solution. Do you believe that the solution proposed by Doug is ethical? Explain why or why not. 2. Suppose that Tonya decides that Doug's solution is not right and objects strongly. Further supposed that, despite Tonya's objections, Doug insists strongly on implementing the action. What should Tonya do? 3. Discuss the situation in light of the IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice.

Understanding Business
12th Edition
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:William Nickels
Chapter1: Taking Risks And Making Profits Within The Dynamic Business Environment
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1CE
icon
Related questions
Question
Required:
1. Summarize Doug's proposed solution. Do you believe that the solution proposed by Doug is
ethical? Explain why or why not.
2. Suppose that Tonya decides that Doug's solution is not right and objects strongly. Further
supposed that, despite Tonya's objections, Doug insists strongly on implementing the action.
What should Tonya do?
3. Discuss the situation in light of the IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice.
Transcribed Image Text:Required: 1. Summarize Doug's proposed solution. Do you believe that the solution proposed by Doug is ethical? Explain why or why not. 2. Suppose that Tonya decides that Doug's solution is not right and objects strongly. Further supposed that, despite Tonya's objections, Doug insists strongly on implementing the action. What should Tonya do? 3. Discuss the situation in light of the IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice.
3.4 ETHICS CASE: ASSIGNING COSTS
Adapted from Mowen's "Managerial Accounting (7th Ed.)" Case 4-67
Tonya Martin, CMA and controller of the Parts Division of Gunderson Inc., was meeting with
Doug Adams, manager of the division. The topic of discussion was the assignment of overhead
costs to jobs and their impact on the division's pricing decisions. Their conversation was as
follows:
●
Tonya: Doug, as you know, about 25% of our business is based on government
contracts, with the other 75% based on jobs from private sources won through bidding.
During the last several years, our private business has declined. We have been losing
more bids than usual. After some careful investigation, I have concluded that we are
overpricing some jobs because of improper assignment of overhead costs. Some jobs are
also being underpriced. Unfortunately, the jobs being overpriced are coming from our
higher- ume, labor-intensive products, so we re losing business.
Doug: I think I understand. Jobs associated with our high-volume products are being
assigned more overhead than they should be receiving. Then when we add our standard
40% markup, we end up with a higher price than our competitors, who assign costs more
accurately.
Tonya: Exactly. We have two producing departments, one labor-intensive and the other
machine-intensive. The labor-intensive department generates much less overhead than
the machine-intensive department. Furthermore, virtually all of our high-volume jobs
are labor-intensive. We have been using a plantwide rate based on direct labor hours to
assign overhead to all jobs. As a result, the high-volume, labor-intensive jobs receive a
greater share of the machine-intensive department's overhead than they deserve. This
problem can be greatly alleviated by switching to departmental overhead rates. For
example, an average high-volume job would be assigned $100,000 of overhead using a
plantwide rate and only $70,000 using departmental rates. The change would lower our
bidding price on high-volume jobs by an average of $42,000 per job. By increasing the
accuracy of our product costing, we can make better pricing decisions and win back
much of our private-sector business.
Doug: Sounds good. When can you implement the change in overhead rates?
Tonya: It won't take long. I can have the new system working within four to six weeks-
certainly by the start of the new fiscal year.
Doug: Hold it. I just thought of a possible complication. As I recall, most of our
government contract work is done in the labor-intensive department. This new overhead
assignment scheme will push down the cost on the government jobs, and we will lose
revenues. They pay us full cost plus our standard markup. This business is not
threatened by our current costing procedures, but we can't switch our rates for only the
private business. Government auditors would question the lack of consistency in our
costing procedures.
Tonya: You do have a point. I thought of this issue also. According to my estimates, we
will gain more revenues from the private sector than we will lose from our government
contracts. Besides, the costs of our government jobs are distorted. In effect, we are
overcharging the government.
Doug: They don't know that and never would unless we switch our overhead assignment
procedures. I think I have the solution. Officially, let's keep our plantwide overhead rate.
All of the official records will reflect this overhead costing approach for both our private
and government business. Unofficially, I want you to develop a separate set of books that
can be used to generate the information we need to prepare competitive bids for our
private-sector business.
Transcribed Image Text:3.4 ETHICS CASE: ASSIGNING COSTS Adapted from Mowen's "Managerial Accounting (7th Ed.)" Case 4-67 Tonya Martin, CMA and controller of the Parts Division of Gunderson Inc., was meeting with Doug Adams, manager of the division. The topic of discussion was the assignment of overhead costs to jobs and their impact on the division's pricing decisions. Their conversation was as follows: ● Tonya: Doug, as you know, about 25% of our business is based on government contracts, with the other 75% based on jobs from private sources won through bidding. During the last several years, our private business has declined. We have been losing more bids than usual. After some careful investigation, I have concluded that we are overpricing some jobs because of improper assignment of overhead costs. Some jobs are also being underpriced. Unfortunately, the jobs being overpriced are coming from our higher- ume, labor-intensive products, so we re losing business. Doug: I think I understand. Jobs associated with our high-volume products are being assigned more overhead than they should be receiving. Then when we add our standard 40% markup, we end up with a higher price than our competitors, who assign costs more accurately. Tonya: Exactly. We have two producing departments, one labor-intensive and the other machine-intensive. The labor-intensive department generates much less overhead than the machine-intensive department. Furthermore, virtually all of our high-volume jobs are labor-intensive. We have been using a plantwide rate based on direct labor hours to assign overhead to all jobs. As a result, the high-volume, labor-intensive jobs receive a greater share of the machine-intensive department's overhead than they deserve. This problem can be greatly alleviated by switching to departmental overhead rates. For example, an average high-volume job would be assigned $100,000 of overhead using a plantwide rate and only $70,000 using departmental rates. The change would lower our bidding price on high-volume jobs by an average of $42,000 per job. By increasing the accuracy of our product costing, we can make better pricing decisions and win back much of our private-sector business. Doug: Sounds good. When can you implement the change in overhead rates? Tonya: It won't take long. I can have the new system working within four to six weeks- certainly by the start of the new fiscal year. Doug: Hold it. I just thought of a possible complication. As I recall, most of our government contract work is done in the labor-intensive department. This new overhead assignment scheme will push down the cost on the government jobs, and we will lose revenues. They pay us full cost plus our standard markup. This business is not threatened by our current costing procedures, but we can't switch our rates for only the private business. Government auditors would question the lack of consistency in our costing procedures. Tonya: You do have a point. I thought of this issue also. According to my estimates, we will gain more revenues from the private sector than we will lose from our government contracts. Besides, the costs of our government jobs are distorted. In effect, we are overcharging the government. Doug: They don't know that and never would unless we switch our overhead assignment procedures. I think I have the solution. Officially, let's keep our plantwide overhead rate. All of the official records will reflect this overhead costing approach for both our private and government business. Unofficially, I want you to develop a separate set of books that can be used to generate the information we need to prepare competitive bids for our private-sector business.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 5 steps

Blurred answer
Similar questions
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding Business
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:
9781259929434
Author:
William Nickels
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134527604
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:
PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Management
ISBN:
9781305947412
Author:
Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi…
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi…
Management
ISBN:
9780135191798
Author:
Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:
PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in…
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in…
Management
ISBN:
9780134728391
Author:
Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:
PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134237473
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:
PEARSON