At a historic roundtable discussion in New York, the chairman (Charles B. Couchman) stated that: “For many years the leading practitioners of public accountancy have been reducing the practice of accountancy to rules and standards as far as it has been found practical and logical to do so. The elements that make up financial statements have been reduced to standard classifications to the extent permitted by complicated and constantly changing transactions of the business world. Rules have been adopted covering, to a large extent, the various entries affecting the financial classifications. These classifications and these rules have been made widely available through books, articles, addresses and accounting curricula. Practically all the progress that has been made in reducing accountancy to rules and standards has been accomplished by the public accounting profession.”
“If all of the transactions of business were susceptible to analysis into a definite and rigid number of effects that could be analyzed to an extent that would allow exact classification, then rules could be adopted that would cover correctly each one. However, that is not the case. No matter how long one is engaged in an extensive practice of accountancy, he is continually faced by new and unexpected transactions, each legitimate but each presenting combinations of effects not previously encountered. That is why the sorting of accounting transactions is rigid classifications to which rules and standards may be applied without distortion of fact is a slow process and cannot be otherwise.”
“No fixed rule may be laid down until all of the accounting elements that may fall within its scope have been studied and their effects determined so completely as to bring exact knowledge that the rule, when applied to them, will result in a proper statement of financial facts. Even then the rule must be subject to possible exception, as there is always the possibility that a new and unexpected set of circumstances may arise to which the rigid application of this rule would result in distortion of truth.”
“It is true, not only of accountancy, but of almost every other complicated subject, that the one who has only a smattering of knowledge of it considers that the subject is reasonably simple and that he can readily devise rules governing each phase thereof. To the simple, all things are simple. It is only when one goes deeply into the subject, whatever it may be, that he becomes aware of the complications and the difficulties of proper treatment that is applicable to each element.”
To learn more about the history of the principles versus rules debate, read the transcript of an October 19, 1937 roundtable at the Waldorf-Astoria, New York titled “To What Extent Can the Practice of Accounting Be Reduced to Rules and Standards?” For more information and different perspectives regarding this ongoing debate, refer to Part 1 and Part 2 of this three-part posting as well as previous postings during the past year.
