Brad Sondahl on thu 8 jan 98
Speaking hypothetically of course, I've always valued my inventory of
pots at cost, since the sale price varies wildly (wholesale, retail,
flaws, sale prices, etc.). In fact, I consider them "Works in progress"
until sold, because of that fact. This approach makes inventory a lot
easier, since I only estimate the weight in clay of unsold pots, and
multiply by the cost of clay. So does this approach send up a lot of
red flags among the CPA's among us?
--
Brad Sondahl
http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl
"I cook by dead reckoning--I reckon if it's dead I can cook it..."
Olivia T Cavy on fri 9 jan 98
Brad,
You are doing it the right way. (You can show your face and put away the
red flag now.) Cost of goods sold, of which inventory is one component,
is always valued at cost. Inventory of raw materials, work in process and
unsold finished work comprise the component that is "unsold" and
therefore not a deduction in the current year. This is one case where you
can take the words "cost of goods sold" literally.
Bonnie D. Hellman, CPA in PA and CO
work email: oliviatcavy@juno.com
home email: mou10man@sgi.net
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:36:17 EST Brad Sondahl
writes:
>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>Speaking hypothetically of course, I've always valued my inventory of
>pots at cost, since the sale price varies wildly (wholesale, retail,
>flaws, sale prices, etc.). In fact, I consider them "Works in
>progress"
>until sold, because of that fact. This approach makes inventory a lot
>easier, since I only estimate the weight in clay of unsold pots, and
>multiply by the cost of clay. So does this approach send up a lot of
>red flags among the CPA's among us?
>--
>Brad Sondahl
>http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl
>"I cook by dead reckoning--I reckon if it's dead I can cook it..."
>
| |
|
